Discussion:
The planet state
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 11:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the planet state. When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?

As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other economically and politically.

When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a loosely bound planetary union. If it is inevitable, why wait?

I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the world. But the only evidence I have is in my head. Freedom and rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world. Then, what we need is a transparent world government that respects everyone's human rights.

Abhinav Lal

"Freedom is an illusion"
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 15:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the planet state. When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a loosely bound planetary union. If it is inevitable, why wait?
The "If" is doing a lot of lifting there.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the world. But the only evidence I have is in my head. Freedom and rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world. Then, what we need is a transparent world government that respects everyone's human rights.
You've also claimed to be the author of The Lord of the Rings iirc
Dorothy J Heydt
2020-01-22 15:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state. When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth rule
Mars, or will Mars want independence?
Post by a***@gmail.com
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth remains
fragmented into nation states competing against each other economically
and politically.
Post by a***@gmail.com
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union. If it is inevitable, why wait?
The "If" is doing a lot of lifting there.
Speculation is what feeds SF, after all. If, on the other hand,
it becomes too way-out-there, it ceases to be SF and turns into
F.

Which may, these days, even be more salable.

"Only fantasy is mass-market. Everything else is cult-fiction.
[Reflective pause.] That includes mainstream."
-- a commissioning editor of a major publishing house, quoted by
T. A. Shippey, 2000
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Joe Bernstein
2020-01-22 16:11:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
"Only fantasy is mass-market. Everything else is cult-fiction.
[Reflective pause.] That includes mainstream."
quoted, per the poster, in 2000.

As of 2000, romance and mystery were cult fiction? This is a weird
outlook.

Of course, since then publishers have discovered that if they *mix*
romance, mystery, *and* fantasy, the result sells even better. So
they do a lot of that. But all three continue to appear unmixed as
well. I mean, I've read some of each, in mass market paperbacks,
published in the last five or so years.

Even niche genres like "urban fiction" and Westerns continue to
appear in mass market paperbacks, but they may not be truly "mass
market" if it turns out that printing and distributing mmpbs has
gotten notably cheaper relative to sale price.

-- JLB
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-22 16:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state. When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth rule
Mars, or will Mars want independence?
Post by a***@gmail.com
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth remains
fragmented into nation states competing against each other economically
and politically.
Post by a***@gmail.com
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union. If it is inevitable, why wait?
The "If" is doing a lot of lifting there.
Speculation is what feeds SF, after all. If, on the other hand,
it becomes too way-out-there, it ceases to be SF and turns into
F.
Yes, but it appears more like a Quaddie "this is how the world works"
everybody else "who's turn is it to tell him now?"
post than anything actually related to SF
Dorothy J Heydt
2020-01-22 17:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:26:19 PM UTC+11,
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state. When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth rule
Mars, or will Mars want independence?
Post by a***@gmail.com
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth remains
fragmented into nation states competing against each other economically
and politically.
Post by a***@gmail.com
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union. If it is inevitable, why wait?
The "If" is doing a lot of lifting there.
Speculation is what feeds SF, after all. If, on the other hand,
it becomes too way-out-there, it ceases to be SF and turns into
F.
Yes, but it appears more like a Quaddie "this is how the world works"
everybody else "who's turn is it to tell him now?"
post than anything actually related to SF
Perhaps. Note, however, that the OP was not Quaddie this time.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-22 19:46:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the planet state. When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a loosely bound planetary union. If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the world. But the only evidence I have is in my head. Freedom and rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world. Then, what we need is a transparent world government that respects everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.

Lynn
Gary R. Schmidt
2020-01-23 01:44:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?

And from what institute?

I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.

Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 02:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.

And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Gary R. Schmidt
2020-01-23 02:34:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.

Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 02:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-23 03:30:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries. I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.

The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids. Since a couple of our customers work with
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.

And then there is pressure. Many of our customers are transitioning
from 900 psia natural gas pipelines (below critical pressure) to 1,500
psia (above critical pressure). I just found out that one of our
customers is making LNG at 3,000 psia which required special handling in
our software.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-23 14:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries. I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
Just because your software doesn't faithfully model
your industrial processes doesn't mean that other
models are equally as bad. That's projection.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding,"meaning that you can
only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is
the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various
factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean,
ice, land surface and the Sun.

For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform
in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best
understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed
data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels,
and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however,
is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making
predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?

Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future
global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that
question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

remainder of article at link above.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-23 18:52:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries. I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
Just because your software doesn't faithfully model
your industrial processes doesn't mean that other
models are equally as bad. That's projection.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding,"meaning that you can
only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is
the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various
factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean,
ice, land surface and the Sun.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform
in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best
understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed
data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels,
and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however,
is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making
predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future
global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that
question: most of the models have been quite accurate.
remainder of article at link above.
Fake Science from the politicized side of NASA.

Here is a good review of the climate models over the last 50 years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/06/climate-models-have-not-improved-in-50-years/

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-23 19:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Just because your software doesn't faithfully model
your industrial processes doesn't mean that other
models are equally as bad. That's projection.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding,"meaning that you can
only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is
the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various
factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean,
ice, land surface and the Sun.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform
in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best
understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed
data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels,
and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however,
is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making
predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future
global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that
question: most of the models have been quite accurate.
remainder of article at link above.
Fake Science from the politicized side of NASA.
Here is a good review of the climate models over the last 50 years.
<snip link to anthony watts website>

I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 19:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Just because your software doesn't faithfully model
your industrial processes doesn't mean that other
models are equally as bad. That's projection.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding,"meaning that you can
only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is
the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various
factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean,
ice, land surface and the Sun.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform
in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best
understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed
data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels,
and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however,
is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making
predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future
global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that
question: most of the models have been quite accurate.
remainder of article at link above.
Fake Science from the politicized side of NASA.
Here is a good review of the climate models over the last 50 years.
<snip link to anthony watts website>
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
Hey, hey, hey... ...he is a geoscientist...

...who once stayed at a Holiday Inn. ;-)
o***@gmail.com
2020-01-23 22:07:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 22:09:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...

...or just reporting the science?
Magewolf
2020-01-23 23:30:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither,she is a walking,talking example that child abuse comes in many
forms. She reminds me of the pitiful teen(or younger) brainwashed
"preachers" that pop up around here every few years.

As for climate change I blame the hippies(cutting their throats as it
turned out going anti-nuke) and it looks like the hippies mark two are
trying to "fix" the world again. So I am just glad I will almost
certainly not live long enough to see the effects of them "saving" the
planet.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-23 23:34:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither,she is a walking,talking example that child abuse comes in many
forms.  She reminds me of the pitiful teen(or younger) brainwashed
"preachers" that pop up around here every few years.
As for climate change I blame the hippies(cutting their throats as it
turned out going anti-nuke)  and it looks like the hippies mark two are
trying to "fix" the world again.  So I am just glad I will almost
certainly not live long enough to see the effects of them "saving" the
planet.
The most effective thing that they can do is to send 90% of us to the
firing squads. We may all not live long.

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-23 23:41:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither,she is a walking,talking example that child abuse comes in many
forms.  She reminds me of the pitiful teen(or younger) brainwashed
"preachers" that pop up around here every few years.
As for climate change I blame the hippies(cutting their throats as it
turned out going anti-nuke)  and it looks like the hippies mark two are
trying to "fix" the world again.  So I am just glad I will almost
certainly not live long enough to see the effects of them "saving" the
planet.
The most effective thing that they can do is to send 90% of us to the
firing squads. We may all not live long.
You first
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 17:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither,she is a walking,talking example that child abuse comes in many
forms.  She reminds me of the pitiful teen(or younger) brainwashed
"preachers" that pop up around here every few years.
Sorry, but how is it supposed to be abuse?

Do you know what motivated her to do this?
Post by Magewolf
As for climate change I blame the hippies(cutting their throats as it
turned out going anti-nuke)  and it looks like the hippies mark two are
trying to "fix" the world again.  So I am just glad I will almost
certainly not live long enough to see the effects of them "saving" the
planet.
So are you saying that climate change is happening...

...or like so many, do you want to have it both ways?

"It's not happening, but if it is, it's not anything we can do anything
about."
Magewolf
2020-01-24 19:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither,she is a walking,talking example that child abuse comes in
many forms.  She reminds me of the pitiful teen(or younger)
brainwashed "preachers" that pop up around here every few years.
Sorry, but how is it supposed to be abuse?
Do you know what motivated her to do this?
Indoctrination to the point that when reporters manage to get her off
script she blue screens?
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Magewolf
As for climate change I blame the hippies(cutting their throats as it
turned out going anti-nuke)  and it looks like the hippies mark two
are trying to "fix" the world again.  So I am just glad I will almost
certainly not live long enough to see the effects of them "saving" the
planet.
So are you saying that climate change is happening...
...or like so many, do you want to have it both ways?
"It's not happening, but if it is, it's not anything we can do anything
about."
Something is happening. Most of the "cures" I have seen proposed have a
funny way of being something the group proposing wants done anyway. And
a lot of them seem designed to show how morally superior the people
proposing them are as opposed to being something that could actually get
done.
Kevrob
2020-01-24 20:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither,she is a walking,talking example that child abuse comes in
many forms.  She reminds me of the pitiful teen(or younger)
brainwashed "preachers" that pop up around here every few years.
Sorry, but how is it supposed to be abuse?
Do you know what motivated her to do this?
Indoctrination to the point that when reporters manage to get her off
script she blue screens?
You are "being mean" to someone on the autism spectrum!
Doubleplus ungood!
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Magewolf
As for climate change I blame the hippies(cutting their throats as it
turned out going anti-nuke)  and it looks like the hippies mark two
are trying to "fix" the world again.  So I am just glad I will almost
certainly not live long enough to see the effects of them "saving" the
planet.
A "hippie chick" who got knocked up during the "Summer of Love"
back in 1967 - 53 years ago - could be a grandmother of a 16-
year-old by now. An 18-year-old then would be 71 in 2020.
Greta T's generation could be "Hippie, Mark III." Her mom
was born in 1970, so Greta's "Mark II."

I knew a few kids in the 70s and 80s that might have
been described as "Red Diaper Babies." They were lefties,
as their parents were. I used to kid them that, to fit
the "rebellious teenager/student" cliche they should
have become: Birchers; Wall Street moguls; ultramontane
Catholics, Fundamentalist Protestants or Orthodox Jews;
or [horrors!] followers of Ayn Rand. :)

[If you've never seen the US TV "Family Ties," one of those
choices Michael J Fox's character.]
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
So are you saying that climate change is happening...
...or like so many, do you want to have it both ways?
"It's not happening, but if it is, it's not anything we can do anything
about."
Something is happening. Most of the "cures" I have seen proposed have a
funny way of being something the group proposing wants done anyway. And
a lot of them seem designed to show how morally superior the people
proposing them are as opposed to being something that could actually get
done.
See Robert Heilbroner's prediction that "environmentalism"
would be the bolt-hole that those in favor of state socialism
would scramble for after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

{Reworking an old post of mine in another group...}

***************************************************************

Ever read "After Communism" by Robert Heilbroner?
The New Yorker, September 10, 1990 P. 91

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1990/09/10/after-communism

"Socialism may not continue as an important force now that Communism is finished. But another way of looking at socialism is as the society that
must emerge if humanity is to cope with the ecological burden that
economic growth is placing on the environment."

IOW, using environmentalism to sneak a planned economy back in after it
failed so massively. The watermelon strategy. Green on the outside...

Heilbroner was no right wing nut.

[quote]

Published in 1953, The Worldly Philosophers has sold nearly four million
copies, making it the second-best-selling economics text of all time (the
first being Paul Samuelson's Economics, a highly popular university textbook). The seventh edition of the book, published in 1999, included a new final
chapter entitled "The End of Worldly Philosophy?", which included
both a grim view on the current state of economics as well as a hopeful
vision for a "reborn worldly philosophy" that incorporated social aspects
of capitalism.

He also came up with a way of classifying economies, as either Traditional (primarily agriculturally based, perhaps subsistence economy), Command (centrally planned economy, often involving the state), Market (capitalism),
or Mixed.

Though an outspoken socialist for nearly his entire career, Heilbroner
famously wrote in a 1989 New Yorker article prior to the collapse of the
Soviet Union:

"Less than 75 years after it officially began, the contest between capitalism and socialism is over: capitalism has won..."

He further wrote in "Dissent" in 1992 that "Capitalism organizes the
material affairs of humankind more satisfactorily than socialism."

[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heilbroner

He was someone who could see that the side he used to carry the banner for
had lost. He also knew what bolt hole the communists and fellow travelers
would make for: a coat of green over the red.

Now, this isn't to say they aren't authentic enviros, honestly concerned
about the future of the planet. But there are power-lusting statists
among them, so I reserve the right to be suspicious of them.

Still, since Heilbroner made his prediction, the data on climate change
has started to stack up. A properly skeptical layperson might think
there is a real problem, and that some people are trying to exploit
a "crisis" for their own benefit. That doesn't mean the science doesn't
have some explanatory power.

********************************************************

Five years on, there's even more data.
I have no objection to rallying people to
reduction of greenhouse gases. I just have
qualms over the means. Let's do what we can
with a minimum of coercion.

Kevin R
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 21:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither,she is a walking,talking example that child abuse comes in
many forms.  She reminds me of the pitiful teen(or younger)
brainwashed "preachers" that pop up around here every few years.
Sorry, but how is it supposed to be abuse?
Do you know what motivated her to do this?
Indoctrination to the point that when reporters manage to get her off
script she blue screens?
Sorry, but that really doesn't answer my question.

You've just substituted one thing you can't actually substantiate
(abuse) with another (indoctrination).
Post by Magewolf
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Magewolf
As for climate change I blame the hippies(cutting their throats as it
turned out going anti-nuke)  and it looks like the hippies mark two
are trying to "fix" the world again.  So I am just glad I will almost
certainly not live long enough to see the effects of them "saving"
the planet.
So are you saying that climate change is happening...
...or like so many, do you want to have it both ways?
"It's not happening, but if it is, it's not anything we can do
anything about."
Something is happening.  Most of the "cures" I have seen proposed have a
funny way of being something the group proposing wants done anyway.  And
a lot of them seem designed to show how morally superior the people
proposing them are as opposed to being something that could actually get
done.
You mean we can't make cars more fuel efficient? We seem to have been
doing it very successfully for quite a while now.

We can't start using more solar and wind generated electrical power?
o***@gmail.com
2020-01-24 22:07:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
Is she doing the science...
...or just reporting the science?
Neither
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-23 23:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
She's a fuckload less whiny than most of the science deniers are.
She's also saying "look at what the experts are saying" rather than "Ignore what's happening"

But you framing it as "what would a 16 year old know" let's you attempt to ignore the situation.
Kevrob
2020-01-24 00:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
She's a fuckload less whiny than most of the science deniers are.
She's also saying "look at what the experts are saying" rather
than "Ignore what's happening"
But you framing it as "what would a 16 year old know" let's you attempt to ignore the situation.
Greta T may be right or wrong, but her campaign was an "argument
from publicity," If she were famous/infamous for anything else, it
would be "argument from celebrity." By the logic of the Greta fans,
I should have listened to Maureen "Marcia Brady" McCormick to get
my ideas about politics, back when the kids across the avenue in
the government junior high were walking out of class over Viet Nam,
while I was at my desk in Catholic school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_to_End_the_War_in_Vietnam

I was a 12-going-on-13-year-old William F Buckley, Jr fan.
I read his column, watched "Firing Line" and "The Advocates."
I was a little proto-wonk: the paperboy who read the paper.

Truth to tell, if "Marcia" had blinked an eyelash at me, I'd
probably have turned peacenik. :) Heck, if Susie Z who sat in
front of me had done so.....

Kevin R
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-24 04:43:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
She's a fuckload less whiny than most of the science deniers are.
She's also saying "look at what the experts are saying" rather
than "Ignore what's happening"
But you framing it as "what would a 16 year old know" let's you attempt to ignore the situation.
Greta T may be right or wrong, but her campaign was an "argument
from publicity," If she were famous/infamous for anything else, it
would be "argument from celebrity." By the logic of the Greta fans,
I should have listened to Maureen "Marcia Brady" McCormick to get
my ideas about politics, back when the kids across the avenue in
the government junior high were walking out of class over Viet Nam,
while I was at my desk in Catholic school.
No, Greta's argument is "listen to the scientists".
So you're not taking her ideas on science.

You're hitting Shawn and Lynn levels of obtuseness here.
Gary R. Schmidt
2020-01-24 05:48:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
She's a fuckload less whiny than most of the science deniers are.
She's also saying "look at what the experts are saying" rather
than "Ignore what's happening"
But you framing it as "what would a 16 year old know" let's you attempt to ignore the situation.
Greta T may be right or wrong, but her campaign was an "argument
from publicity," If she were famous/infamous for anything else, it
would be "argument from celebrity." By the logic of the Greta fans,
I should have listened to Maureen "Marcia Brady" McCormick to get
my ideas about politics, back when the kids across the avenue in
the government junior high were walking out of class over Viet Nam,
while I was at my desk in Catholic school.
No, Greta's argument is "listen to the scientists".
So you're not taking her ideas on science.
You're hitting Shawn and Lynn levels of obtuseness here.
Not to mention, "Attacking the messenger, rather than the message."

After many decades on-line, I still haven't gotten used to it, the
anonymity of a keyboard enabling the big, bad, blokes to beat up <insert
anything they are sure won't be able to track them down>. Lusers.

Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...
Kevrob
2020-01-24 18:04:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
I'll take 50 years of scientific research over some random nobody
on a very right-wing web site.
.....how 'bout a slightly autistic, whiny Swedish teen ?
She's a fuckload less whiny than most of the science deniers are.
She's also saying "look at what the experts are saying" rather
than "Ignore what's happening"
But you framing it as "what would a 16 year old know" let's you attempt to ignore the situation.
Greta T may be right or wrong, but her campaign was an "argument
from publicity," If she were famous/infamous for anything else, it
would be "argument from celebrity." By the logic of the Greta fans,
I should have listened to Maureen "Marcia Brady" McCormick to get
my ideas about politics, back when the kids across the avenue in
the government junior high were walking out of class over Viet Nam,
while I was at my desk in Catholic school.
No, Greta's argument is "listen to the scientists".
So you're not taking her ideas on science.
You're hitting Shawn and Lynn levels of obtuseness here.
Not to mention, "Attacking the messenger, rather than the message."
After many decades on-line, I still haven't gotten used to it, the
anonymity of a keyboard enabling the big, bad, blokes to beat up <insert
anything they are sure won't be able to track them down>. Lusers.
Young Ms Thunberg is a manufactured celebrity, daughter of
parents in show biz, no more qualified to determine if "the
science" we are told to look to is correct than I am. I am
not making a case against anthropogenic climate change. I'm
just pointing out the weirdness of going ga-ga for a children's
crusade led by someone too young even to vote.

One cannot simultaneously claim special privilege for one's youth,
then complain when one is criticized, as any adult would be.

If Ms T didn't have her neuroatypical "superpower," I might call
her coddled, pampered, and indulged. I might say the same if I
were talking about Billie Eilish.

Someone trying to be persuasive in something other than her native
language should be wary of differences in idiom between languages.
Thunberg really had to backpedal when she suggested putting world
leaders "against the wall." Perhaps a few years in university learning
about things like the French revolution, or at least goofing off reading
Douglas Adams.

[quote]

Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopedia Galactica that had
the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a thousand years
in the future defined the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics
Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against
the wall when the revolution came."

[/quote] - h2g2

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-01-23 23:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:52:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries. I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
Just because your software doesn't faithfully model
your industrial processes doesn't mean that other
models are equally as bad. That's projection.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding,"meaning that you can
only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is
the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various
factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean,
ice, land surface and the Sun.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform
in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best
understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed
data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels,
and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however,
is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making
predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future
global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that
question: most of the models have been quite accurate.
remainder of article at link above.
Fake Science from the politicized side of NASA.
Here is a good review of the climate models over the last 50 years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/06/climate-models-have-not-improved-in-50-years/
The problem with all this is that we are near a peak in the cycle.
_Something_ should be happening around now and I haven't seen any
climate model that addresses it. What I get out of the imitation
climatologists is "Milankovitch cycles" with no explanation of why the
cycle with the strongest effect on insolation shows up as noise in the
signal while climate appears to be dominated by the weakest, with
extensive lags. Looks to me more like there's something else going on
that has a cycle that approximates the longest and weakest of the
insolation cycles, but the imitation climatologists are SOOOO certain
that they know how things work.

I suspect that nature has a big fat surprise for them.
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-23 23:42:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:52:25 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries. I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
Just because your software doesn't faithfully model
your industrial processes doesn't mean that other
models are equally as bad. That's projection.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding,"meaning that you can
only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is
the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various
factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean,
ice, land surface and the Sun.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform
in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best
understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed
data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels,
and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however,
is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making
predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future
global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that
question: most of the models have been quite accurate.
remainder of article at link above.
Fake Science from the politicized side of NASA.
Here is a good review of the climate models over the last 50 years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/06/climate-models-have-not-improved-in-50-years/
The problem with all this is that we are near a peak in the cycle.
_Something_ should be happening around now and I haven't seen any
climate model that addresses it. What I get out of the imitation
climatologists is "Milankovitch cycles" with no explanation of why the
cycle with the strongest effect on insolation shows up as noise in the
signal while climate appears to be dominated by the weakest, with
extensive lags. Looks to me more like there's something else going on
that has a cycle that approximates the longest and weakest of the
insolation cycles, but the imitation climatologists are SOOOO certain
that they know how things work.
I suspect that nature has a big fat surprise for them.
You've been told 100s of times that they aren't ignoring the cycle but you'd rather stick your head in the sand and imagine that you're smarter than experts who've spent their careers studying the issues.
William Hyde
2020-01-23 20:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.


The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.

But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).

Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.


I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.

But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.

Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.

Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-23 23:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.
The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.
But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).
Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.
I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.
But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.
Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.
Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.
William Hyde
It is all of the raw data. Specifically ideal gas heat capacities,
liquid heat capacities, liquid heat capacities, liquid thermal
conductivities, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc, etc, etc. Very
few of them work very well as they close in on their critical points.
Very few of them have good curves below their triple point. Yet a lot
of the new processes and operating conditions are taking the mixtures
way into the critical zones. For instance, most of the new natural gas
pipelines are now capable of running at 1,500 psia which is 500 psi
above the critical pressure of the typical mixture. Or a wet CO2 waste
well that is at 4,500 psia will drop 200 R when a relief valve is opened
and form a solid plug (turns into a finite elements calculation).

The general range that we work with is 3 R (2 K) to 4,000 R (2,200 K),
0.001 psia (near vacuum) to 30,000 psia, with up to 1,000 pure
components. The specific ranges are much tighter than that depending on
the equation of state (we have 60) and the pure components (we have 1,200).

Lynn
William Hyde
2020-01-24 22:03:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.
The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.
But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).
Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.
I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.
But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.
Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.
Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.
William Hyde
It is all of the raw data. Specifically ideal gas heat capacities,
liquid heat capacities, liquid heat capacities, liquid thermal
conductivities, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc, etc, etc. Very
few of them work very well as they close in on their critical points.
Very few of them have good curves below their triple point. Yet a lot
of the new processes and operating conditions are taking the mixtures
way into the critical zones. For instance, most of the new natural gas
pipelines are now capable of running at 1,500 psia which is 500 psi
above the critical pressure of the typical mixture. Or a wet CO2 waste
well that is at 4,500 psia will drop 200 R when a relief valve is opened
and form a solid plug (turns into a finite elements calculation).
The general range that we work with is 3 R (2 K) to 4,000 R (2,200 K),
0.001 psia (near vacuum) to 30,000 psia, with up to 1,000 pure
components. The specific ranges are much tighter than that depending on
the equation of state (we have 60) and the pure components (we have 1,200).
That's an impressive suite of problems. I am always impressed by what experimental scientists can measure, but it sounds like you have enough problems to keep a team busy for a century.

(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 22:52:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.
The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.
But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).
Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.
I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.
But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.
Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.
Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.
William Hyde
It is all of the raw data. Specifically ideal gas heat capacities,
liquid heat capacities, liquid heat capacities, liquid thermal
conductivities, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc, etc, etc. Very
few of them work very well as they close in on their critical points.
Very few of them have good curves below their triple point. Yet a lot
of the new processes and operating conditions are taking the mixtures
way into the critical zones. For instance, most of the new natural gas
pipelines are now capable of running at 1,500 psia which is 500 psi
above the critical pressure of the typical mixture. Or a wet CO2 waste
well that is at 4,500 psia will drop 200 R when a relief valve is opened
and form a solid plug (turns into a finite elements calculation).
The general range that we work with is 3 R (2 K) to 4,000 R (2,200 K),
0.001 psia (near vacuum) to 30,000 psia, with up to 1,000 pure
components. The specific ranges are much tighter than that depending on
the equation of state (we have 60) and the pure components (we have 1,200).
That's an impressive suite of problems. I am always impressed by what experimental scientists can measure, but it sounds like you have enough problems to keep a team busy for a century.
(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)
William Hyde
The most pressure that I have seen is 35,000 psia. The lab rig had
1/8th inch tubing which almost immediately sprang a leak. They were
gathering data for XXXXXXXXXX's new deep water crude oil and natural gas
well in the Gulf of Mexico that came in at almost 30,000 psia.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2020-01-25 04:41:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.
The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.
But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).
Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.
I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.
But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.
Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.
Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.
William Hyde
It is all of the raw data. Specifically ideal gas heat capacities,
liquid heat capacities, liquid heat capacities, liquid thermal
conductivities, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc, etc, etc. Very
few of them work very well as they close in on their critical points.
Very few of them have good curves below their triple point. Yet a lot
of the new processes and operating conditions are taking the mixtures
way into the critical zones. For instance, most of the new natural gas
pipelines are now capable of running at 1,500 psia which is 500 psi
above the critical pressure of the typical mixture. Or a wet CO2 waste
well that is at 4,500 psia will drop 200 R when a relief valve is opened
and form a solid plug (turns into a finite elements calculation).
The general range that we work with is 3 R (2 K) to 4,000 R (2,200 K),
0.001 psia (near vacuum) to 30,000 psia, with up to 1,000 pure
components. The specific ranges are much tighter than that depending on
the equation of state (we have 60) and the pure components (we have 1,200).
That's an impressive suite of problems. I am always impressed by what experimental scientists can measure, but it sounds like you have enough problems to keep a team busy for a century.
(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)
William Hyde
The most pressure that I have seen is 35,000 psia. The lab rig had
1/8th inch tubing which almost immediately sprang a leak. They were
gathering data for XXXXXXXXXX's new deep water crude oil and natural gas
well in the Gulf of Mexico that came in at almost 30,000 psia.
Lynn
Diamond Anvil cells can reach 7.7 million atmospheres. That's 113 millioin psi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell

pt
Alan Baker
2020-01-25 05:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.
The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.
But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).
Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.
I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.
But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.
Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.
Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.
William Hyde
It is all of the raw data. Specifically ideal gas heat capacities,
liquid heat capacities, liquid heat capacities, liquid thermal
conductivities, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc, etc, etc. Very
few of them work very well as they close in on their critical points.
Very few of them have good curves below their triple point. Yet a lot
of the new processes and operating conditions are taking the mixtures
way into the critical zones. For instance, most of the new natural gas
pipelines are now capable of running at 1,500 psia which is 500 psi
above the critical pressure of the typical mixture. Or a wet CO2 waste
well that is at 4,500 psia will drop 200 R when a relief valve is opened
and form a solid plug (turns into a finite elements calculation).
The general range that we work with is 3 R (2 K) to 4,000 R (2,200 K),
0.001 psia (near vacuum) to 30,000 psia, with up to 1,000 pure
components. The specific ranges are much tighter than that depending on
the equation of state (we have 60) and the pure components (we have 1,200).
That's an impressive suite of problems. I am always impressed by what experimental scientists can measure, but it sounds like you have enough problems to keep a team busy for a century.
(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)
William Hyde
The most pressure that I have seen is 35,000 psia. The lab rig had
1/8th inch tubing which almost immediately sprang a leak. They were
gathering data for XXXXXXXXXX's new deep water crude oil and natural gas
well in the Gulf of Mexico that came in at almost 30,000 psia.
Lynn
Diamond Anvil cells can reach 7.7 million atmospheres. That's 113 millioin psi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell
pt
What??? Lynn not actually knowing as much about a subject as he thinks
he does???

Armageddon is upon us!

;-)
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-25 16:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)
The most pressure that I have seen is 35,000 psia. The lab rig had
1/8th inch tubing which almost immediately sprang a leak. They were
gathering data for XXXXXXXXXX's new deep water crude oil and natural gas
well in the Gulf of Mexico that came in at almost 30,000 psia.
Diamond Anvil cells can reach 7.7 million atmospheres. That's 113 millioin psi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell
What??? Lynn not actually knowing as much about a subject as he thinks
he does???
Armageddon is upon us!
To be fair Lynn actually says that the highest pressure he's seen is X.
A quick look at the Diamond Anvil Cells also suggests that they might not be much use for the sort of work Lynn does so it's not unreasonable that he's unaware of them.
Peter Trei
2020-01-25 16:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)
The most pressure that I have seen is 35,000 psia. The lab rig had
1/8th inch tubing which almost immediately sprang a leak. They were
gathering data for XXXXXXXXXX's new deep water crude oil and natural gas
well in the Gulf of Mexico that came in at almost 30,000 psia.
Diamond Anvil cells can reach 7.7 million atmospheres. That's 113 millioin psi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_anvil_cell
What??? Lynn not actually knowing as much about a subject as he thinks
he does???
Armageddon is upon us!
To be fair Lynn actually says that the highest pressure he's seen is X.
A quick look at the Diamond Anvil Cells also suggests that they might not be much use for the sort of work Lynn does so it's not unreasonable that he's unaware of them.
Fair enough, but DACs are cool - you have a device that fits in your palm that
can generate earth-core level pressures. The Wikipedia article is quite
interesting, including studies of bacteria surviving high pressure.

pt
Peter Trei
2020-01-25 04:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.
The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.
But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).
Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.
I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.
But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.
Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.
Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.
William Hyde
It is all of the raw data. Specifically ideal gas heat capacities,
liquid heat capacities, liquid heat capacities, liquid thermal
conductivities, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc, etc, etc. Very
few of them work very well as they close in on their critical points.
Very few of them have good curves below their triple point. Yet a lot
of the new processes and operating conditions are taking the mixtures
way into the critical zones. For instance, most of the new natural gas
pipelines are now capable of running at 1,500 psia which is 500 psi
above the critical pressure of the typical mixture. Or a wet CO2 waste
well that is at 4,500 psia will drop 200 R when a relief valve is opened
and form a solid plug (turns into a finite elements calculation).
The general range that we work with is 3 R (2 K) to 4,000 R (2,200 K),
0.001 psia (near vacuum) to 30,000 psia, with up to 1,000 pure
components. The specific ranges are much tighter than that depending on
the equation of state (we have 60) and the pure components (we have 1,200).
That's an impressive suite of problems. I am always impressed by what experimental scientists can measure, but it sounds like you have enough problems to keep a team busy for a century.
(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)
William Hyde
I don't know where you're getting 'a millionth of a second', since 20 years
ago perovskite (that's the correct spelling) was being studied at lower mantle
conditions for extended periods in laser heated diamond anvils:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL008397

Very high pressure physics went through a heroic period, which used huge expensive machines, but was late revolutionized by the diamond anvil, in which a
handscrew could surpass what had previous taken a room sized machine.


pt
William Hyde
2020-01-25 21:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:34:05 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:44:23 +1100, "Gary R. Schmidt"
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
And you took your degree in Metorology and/or Climatology when?
And from what institute?
I'll believe my friends who started their degrees in Meteorology the
same year I started my degree (for which I took some Meteorology, just
first and fourth year), and have been publishing papers on the degree of
climate change we are seeing for decades now, over your opinion.
Considering that the politicoclimatologists have been shouting for
decades now that meteorology is not climatology, forgive me if I
question the relevance of your knowledge of meteorology.
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
Sigh, guess what I was doing in those fourth year Meteorology classes?
Hint: It involved computers, and large chunks of historical data from
various weather stations across Australia and out past the surrounding
continental shelf. And yes, it *was* easy to get a model that confirmed
what you wanted it to say, rather than reflect reality.
The thing is, the climate models are extrapolating. And that's always
asking for trouble.
The biggest problems with our modeling software are the phase
boundaries.
That is certainly an issue which must be dealt with in climate models as well. On the model I worked on in the early 1980s the transition from water vapor to snow to rain was very crudely modeled. It worked, but we had serious doubts about it's applicability to other climates, and it had to be improved. The formation and dissipation of clouds was also not at all general, and that is what I worked on.
The formation of sea ice is another problem. Even when successfully predicted, the properties of the sea ice (albedo, thickness, thermal conductivity) depend on factors that are hard to deal with, such as the amount of brine included in the ice, which itself changes over time.
But these problems were dealt with. Funny how fifty years of effort by competent people can make real progress (no, don't bother citing your usual suspects - I've already seen the link).
Not that there isn't room for further improvement. There is and always will be.
I call it dancing across the discontinuities. If the
Post by Lynn McGuire
mixture is narrow boiling (less than 10 F from the dew point to the
bubble point) then life sucks as the mixture tends to drop components
rapidly. Wide boiling mixtures are much easier to work even if there is
a lot of water. I've actually got customers with all four phases
(vapor, hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous liquid, and solid) at the same time.
The next biggest problem we have is any extrapolations because most of
the base equations are quadratics which tend to spin off quickly as
opposed to the sinusoids.
I am a little confused as to why you have to extrapolate at all. Contrary to the opinion expressed above, that's not necessary in climate models.
But then we deal with a narrower range than you do, temperatures mostly from -100 to +50, pressures from just over 1 atm to zero. Of course, the ocean models have much higher pressures, but gradients are vastly smaller than in your work.
Is it your equations of state that must be extrapolated? Are they not lab-tested for the pressures and temperatures you use? If so, some academic is missing a chance to do some very nice research. A late colleague of mine produced a nice paper refining the equation of state for seawater (something of a nightmare to people used to dealing with air) and it was much appreciated.
Since a couple of our customers work with
Post by Lynn McGuire
liquid helium, the equations had to be hand built for those.
Now that sounds interesting. And confusing.
William Hyde
It is all of the raw data. Specifically ideal gas heat capacities,
liquid heat capacities, liquid heat capacities, liquid thermal
conductivities, surface tension, vapor pressure, etc, etc, etc. Very
few of them work very well as they close in on their critical points.
Very few of them have good curves below their triple point. Yet a lot
of the new processes and operating conditions are taking the mixtures
way into the critical zones. For instance, most of the new natural gas
pipelines are now capable of running at 1,500 psia which is 500 psi
above the critical pressure of the typical mixture. Or a wet CO2 waste
well that is at 4,500 psia will drop 200 R when a relief valve is opened
and form a solid plug (turns into a finite elements calculation).
The general range that we work with is 3 R (2 K) to 4,000 R (2,200 K),
0.001 psia (near vacuum) to 30,000 psia, with up to 1,000 pure
components. The specific ranges are much tighter than that depending on
the equation of state (we have 60) and the pure components (we have 1,200).
That's an impressive suite of problems. I am always impressed by what experimental scientists can measure, but it sounds like you have enough problems to keep a team busy for a century.
(In a seminar I attended a couple of years ago on the deep mantle it was mentioned in passing that the properties of the mineral in question, Perskovite IIRC were measured in the lab at mantle pressures. Such pressures could only be achieved for a millionth of a second or less in the lab. I'd like to attend a talk on how they did that.)
William Hyde
I don't know where you're getting 'a millionth of a second', since 20 years
ago perovskite (that's the correct spelling) was being studied at lower mantle
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL008397
You're right, of course.

The seminar was definitely on perovskite deep in the mantle, and the experiment was mentioned. But agreed that there would be no point to this now. Possibly the speaker was mentioning some ancient experiment out of historical interest, and I missed that context. Nobody objected, but it was a small seminar with most of the audience (like me) being more atmosphere/ocean types so if he misspoke he would likely not be corrected.

Thanks for the correction. One down, only billions to go!
Post by Peter Trei
Very high pressure physics went through a heroic period, which used huge expensive machines, but was late revolutionized by the diamond anvil, in which a
handscrew could surpass what had previous taken a room sized machine.
Fascinating and strangely exhilarating.

William Hyde
William Hyde
2020-01-23 19:52:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And as someone who has done computer modeling for a living, I know
better than anyone who has not done so how easy it is for a computer
model to lie to you and how important it is to validate it over the
entire range of conditions that it is supposed to support.
This we have known since day one.

William Hyde
Alan Baker
2020-01-23 17:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.  When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
colony, or will there be a colony for all of humanity.  Will earth
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation.  But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.  If it is inevitable, why wait?
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.  But the only evidence I have is in my head.  Freedom and
rights are an illusion with the shadow in control of the world.  Then,
what we need is a transparent world government that respects
everyone's human rights.
Abhinav Lal
"Freedom is an illusion"
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
Lynn
You really are a twit.
Joy Beeson
2020-01-24 18:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.

And they are pretty poor fantasy.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 18:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Such as?
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 21:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.

But Climate Change is not man-made. Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.

Limiting CO2 production is not a solution since it is not the problem.
Nor is limiting CO2 doable without extreme pressure on China and quite
possibly war. China now has several hundred coal power plants and is
starting FIVE new coal power plants PER WEEK. China already produces
twice as much CO2 as the USA and will soon be treble the USA.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 21:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.  Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
So your position is that the activities of human beings have no effect
on climate whatsoever, is that right?
Limiting CO2 production is not a solution since it is not the problem.
And you know this... ...how?
Nor is limiting CO2 doable without extreme pressure on China and quite
possibly war.  China now has several hundred coal power plants and is
starting FIVE new coal power plants PER WEEK.  China already produces
twice as much CO2 as the USA and will soon be treble the USA.
So you should try and fight a fire in your building if someone else
isn't trying hard enough for your taste (or at all)? Is that right?
William Hyde
2020-01-24 22:11:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.

Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.

William Hyde
Kevrob
2020-01-24 22:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Isn't it fair to say that there's a great deal of anthropocentic
change, along with exogenous factors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Post by William Hyde
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
Kevin R
a.a #2310
William Hyde
2020-01-25 22:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Isn't it fair to say that there's a great deal of anthropocentic
change, along with exogenous factors?
That would understate the influence of anthropogenic forcing to a degree so extreme that I would consider the statement deceptive.

Studies in which natural forcing alone is considered produce no significant warming, even a small net cooling in recent decades. In the early 20th century when the anthropogenic signal was small, the natural signal was more important.

Nobody has ever denied that natural climate change exists - without it I wouldn't have had a career - but it is not responsible for the current warming.


William Hyde
Kevrob
2020-01-25 23:10:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Isn't it fair to say that there's a great deal of anthropocentic
change, along with exogenous factors?
That would understate the influence of anthropogenic forcing to a degree so extreme that I would consider the statement deceptive.
Studies in which natural forcing alone is considered produce no significant warming, even a small net cooling in recent decades. In the early 20th century when the anthropogenic signal was small, the natural signal was more important.
Nobody has ever denied that natural climate change exists - without it I wouldn't have had a career - but it is not responsible for the current warming.
So it's about the value of "great deal," where anthropogenic
effects are the vast majority of the problem? That would make
sense, without dismissing natural changes, just minimizing their
significance. If that is what the data say, that's what they say.

I'm reminded that some of these seemingly "natural" occurrences
have human inputs, and can affect climate. The specific one that
comes to mind is desertification, which can be caused by warming,
or, when a result, at least in large part, of human-caused
deforestation, or overgrazing, can contribute to warming. I
haven't seen math for this, but my gut feeling would be that it
is a reflexive process. If climate is shrinking the area in
pasture or trees, a fixed population will use a higher % of what
is left, and a growing population even more of it. Vicious circle.
Less green cover of the planet can affect albedo, can't it?
But all this is supposed to be in the computer models, right?

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-01-26 00:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Isn't it fair to say that there's a great deal of anthropocentic
change, along with exogenous factors?
That would understate the influence of anthropogenic forcing to a degree so extreme that I would consider the statement deceptive.
Studies in which natural forcing alone is considered produce no significant warming, even a small net cooling in recent decades. In the early 20th century when the anthropogenic signal was small, the natural signal was more important.
Nobody has ever denied that natural climate change exists - without it I wouldn't have had a career - but it is not responsible for the current warming.
So it's about the value of "great deal," where anthropogenic
effects are the vast majority of the problem? That would make
sense, without dismissing natural changes, just minimizing their
significance. If that is what the data say, that's what they say.
The problem with this is that we've undergone a substantial increase
in temperature over the past 10,000 years and claims of "highest in
history" fail to note that history represents 5 percent of a
glaciation cycle and 0.0001 percent of the time that the planet has
existed--it's too short a span to be meaningful in terms of climate.
Post by Kevrob
I'm reminded that some of these seemingly "natural" occurrences
have human inputs, and can affect climate. The specific one that
comes to mind is desertification, which can be caused by warming,
or, when a result, at least in large part, of human-caused
deforestation, or overgrazing, can contribute to warming.
haven't seen math for this, but my gut feeling would be that it
is a reflexive process. If climate is shrinking the area in
pasture or trees, a fixed population will use a higher % of what
is left, and a growing population even more of it. Vicious circle.
Less green cover of the planet can affect albedo, can't it?
But all this is supposed to be in the computer models, right?
Note that an attempt was made to reverse desertification in Zimbabwe.
The theory was that it was the result of overgrazing by elephants.
40,000 elephants were killed to end their overgrazing. It didn't
work. To his credit the person responsible has tried to figure out
why it didn't work and has come up with an alternative approach that
doesn't involve massive kill-offs. Whether it works it is too soon to
tell--there's a small amount of research that suggests that it does
and a great deal of "conventional wisdom" that still says to kill the
elephants. Complicating matters is the fact that his method would put
a lot of cattle now in feedlots back on the range, so of course he is
the archenmeny of the anti-beef nutters.
Kevrob
2020-01-26 00:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Note that an attempt was made to reverse desertification in Zimbabwe.
The theory was that it was the result of overgrazing by elephants.
40,000 elephants were killed to end their overgrazing. It didn't
work. To his credit the person responsible has tried to figure out
why it didn't work and has come up with an alternative approach that
doesn't involve massive kill-offs. Whether it works it is too soon to
tell--there's a small amount of research that suggests that it does
and a great deal of "conventional wisdom" that still says to kill the
elephants. Complicating matters is the fact that his method would put
a lot of cattle now in feedlots back on the range, so of course he is
the archenmeny of the anti-beef nutters.
The recent drought is causing die-offs and hard choices.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-wildlife/dought-hit-zimbabwe-readies-mass-wildlife-migration-idUSKBN1XL19O

More habitat is needed for the population, but the drought
is hitting humans hard.

[quote]

Parts of Zimbabwe have had their lowest rainfall amounts since 1981,
and maize crops in Zambia have been decimated. The situation is so
desperate that some farmers in South Africa have reportedly committed
suicide, according to Oxfam. At least nine other African nations are
also suffering from drought.

At the same time, Oxfam says, record-breaking temperatures in the Indian
Ocean have resulted in heavier-than-usual rainfall and flash floods in Kenya
and South Sudan.

[/quote]

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-11-08-africa-drought-hunger-extreme-weather

see also:

"Zimbabwe 'on brink of man-made starvation', UN warns"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50586514

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-01-26 04:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Note that an attempt was made to reverse desertification in Zimbabwe.
The theory was that it was the result of overgrazing by elephants.
40,000 elephants were killed to end their overgrazing. It didn't
work. To his credit the person responsible has tried to figure out
why it didn't work and has come up with an alternative approach that
doesn't involve massive kill-offs. Whether it works it is too soon to
tell--there's a small amount of research that suggests that it does
and a great deal of "conventional wisdom" that still says to kill the
elephants. Complicating matters is the fact that his method would put
a lot of cattle now in feedlots back on the range, so of course he is
the archenmeny of the anti-beef nutters.
The recent drought is causing die-offs and hard choices.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-wildlife/dought-hit-zimbabwe-readies-mass-wildlife-migration-idUSKBN1XL19O
More habitat is needed for the population, but the drought
is hitting humans hard.
[quote]
Parts of Zimbabwe have had their lowest rainfall amounts since 1981,
and maize crops in Zambia have been decimated. The situation is so
desperate that some farmers in South Africa have reportedly committed
suicide, according to Oxfam. At least nine other African nations are
also suffering from drought.
At the same time, Oxfam says, record-breaking temperatures in the Indian
Ocean have resulted in heavier-than-usual rainfall and flash floods in Kenya
and South Sudan.
[/quote]
https://weather.com/news/news/2019-11-08-africa-drought-hunger-extreme-weather
"Zimbabwe 'on brink of man-made starvation', UN warns"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50586514
And of course this is all due to anthropogenic global warming and not
to the regular droughts that occur every 30-65 years.

Then there's the question of what caused the 350 year drought between
1400 and 1750. Can't blame that one on warming--it happened during
the "little ice age".
William Hyde
2020-01-26 21:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Isn't it fair to say that there's a great deal of anthropocentic
change, along with exogenous factors?
That would understate the influence of anthropogenic forcing to a degree so extreme that I would consider the statement deceptive.
Studies in which natural forcing alone is considered produce no significant warming, even a small net cooling in recent decades. In the early 20th century when the anthropogenic signal was small, the natural signal was more important.
Nobody has ever denied that natural climate change exists - without it I wouldn't have had a career - but it is not responsible for the current warming.
So it's about the value of "great deal," where anthropogenic
effects are the vast majority of the problem? That would make
sense, without dismissing natural changes, just minimizing their
significance. If that is what the data say, that's what they say.
I'm reminded that some of these seemingly "natural" occurrences
have human inputs, and can affect climate. The specific one that
comes to mind is desertification, which can be caused by warming,
or, when a result, at least in large part, of human-caused
deforestation, or overgrazing, can contribute to warming.
Yes, we've been changing local climates by land use for millennia. Perhaps even global climate, if we accept Ruddiman's hypothesis (I've lost track of the current status of that idea).

I
Post by Kevrob
haven't seen math for this, but my gut feeling would be that it
is a reflexive process. If climate is shrinking the area in
pasture or trees, a fixed population will use a higher % of what
is left, and a growing population even more of it. Vicious circle.
Less green cover of the planet can affect albedo, can't it?
But all this is supposed to be in the computer models, right?
I don't think there is any agreed-upon mathematical formulation for this. Even Lynn's four-phase mixtures are easier to predict than people.

I have written sets of equations for similar processes, but purely for illustrative and teaching purposes. I wouldn't dream of proposing such results as a basis for policy, and I'd be laughed off the planet if I did.

The changing biosphere is in global scale models, but not usually in a prognostic sense (not as above, anyway). Modellers don't claim to be able to predict how many cattle will overgraze an area. Situations like this, where the boundary conditions are dependent on political or economic choices, are handled by running a suite of simulations with various scenarios. Most obviously with the case of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (e.g. "business as usual" scenario "green" scenario, and so forth).

You are right that changing plant cover will probably affect albedo. Cutting down forests also affects friction, or the "roughness length" of the surface. Vertical transport (e.g. of moisture) is strongly affected by the interaction of the wind with the surface. So cutting down a forest can affect areas well downwind, e.g. by drying them.

But as far as global climate change is concerned, the effects of human land use over the past 100 years are small relative to the greenhouse gas signal. We'd be seeing largely the same picture if our ground cover was the same as that of 1900. Locally, though it's a different story.

Far from everything is in the models, of course. Decades ago, modellers started with the big things (except the oceans, which were intractable then) and moved downward to more and more subtle effects.

For example, the general circulation model I first worked on in the early 1980s had fixed clouds (the average from climatology) and sea surface temperatures. My work with the model was to create a diagnostic cloud submodel. We were one of three GCM groups attempting this at the time. The model had only just moved from being capable only of "perpetual" simulations (i.e. the same day over and over and over) to multi year runs with the sun's position changing appropriately (this change being due to getting a faster computer as much as anything).

Smaller improvements were legion. Mountain chains set off a train of waves downwind which affect weather there. The model's linear wave formulation was doing a so-so job of dealing with this. A professor at the U of Toronto solved the more difficult nonlinear wave problem, this was implemented in the model and suddenly the weather in Kansas City improved (or at least got closer to the observed weather). There are tens of thousands of cases of this. I didn't really work long on this model, as I was more interested in ice sheets.

The models will of course never be perfect. But they are more than good enough for present purposes.

William Hyde
Kevrob
2020-01-26 22:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
So it's about the value of "great deal," where anthropogenic
effects are the vast majority of the problem? That would make
sense, without dismissing natural changes, just minimizing their
significance. If that is what the data say, that's what they say.
I'm reminded that some of these seemingly "natural" occurrences
have human inputs, and can affect climate. The specific one that
comes to mind is desertification, which can be caused by warming,
or, when a result, at least in large part, of human-caused
deforestation, or overgrazing, can contribute to warming.
Yes, we've been changing local climates by land use for millennia.
Perhaps even global climate, if we accept Ruddiman's hypothesis
(I've lost track of the current status of that idea).
This fellow, the.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman

That's interesting.
Post by William Hyde
Post by Kevrob
I haven't seen math for this, but my gut feeling would be that it
is a reflexive process. If climate is shrinking the area in
pasture or trees, a fixed population will use a higher % of what
is left, and a growing population even more of it. Vicious circle.
Less green cover of the planet can affect albedo, can't it?
But all this is supposed to be in the computer models, right?
I don't think there is any agreed-upon mathematical formulation for this. Even Lynn's four-phase mixtures are easier to predict than people.
I have written sets of equations for similar processes, but purely for illustrative and teaching purposes. I wouldn't dream of proposing such results as a basis for policy, and I'd be laughed off the planet if I did.
My BA is political science and history. If you think weather
is hard to predict, try people! About the only "science" in
PoliSci is public opinion polling, and much of that is sloppy
or hobbled by individuals' understandable desire to be left
alone.

My "intuition" is that folks making their local climate worse
leads to outmigration to "unspoiled" areas, where the whole dance
starts all over again. So we get things like sodbusting in the US
Great Plains, or what's happening in the Amazon. This is sometimes
offset by, frex, reforestation of "worn out" farmland, as in the US
northeast, cleared back in colonial days. I wouldn't say that
makes up for "Dust Bowl" conditions, though.
Post by William Hyde
The changing biosphere is in global scale models, but not usually in a
prognostic sense (not as above, anyway). Modellers don't claim to be
able to predict how many cattle will overgraze an area. Situations like
this, where the boundary conditions are dependent on political or economic
choices, are handled by running a suite of simulations with various
scenarios. Most obviously with the case of anthropogenic CO2 emissions
(e.g. "business as usual" scenario "green" scenario, and so forth).
I wouldn't expect local predictive power.
Post by William Hyde
You are right that changing plant cover will probably affect albedo.
[snipping a lot of interesting stuff.]
Post by William Hyde
The models will of course never be perfect. But they are more
than good enough for present purposes.
We can't expect perfection in models. Adequacy must be
tough enough.

Kevin R
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-27 15:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Nobody has ever denied that natural climate change exists - without it I wouldn't have had a career - but it is not responsible for the current warming.
So it's about the value of "great deal," where anthropogenic
effects are the vast majority of the problem? That would make
sense, without dismissing natural changes, just minimizing their
significance. If that is what the data say, that's what they say.
Don't forget that the drivers of anthropogenic climate changes
include changes in the CO2 atmospheric fraction, land use changes
(e.g. carbon sink reduction), groundwater depletion (a contributor to
sea level rise), and population growth amongst other factors.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 22:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.

About the ocean acidification, I have no idea. I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.

So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ? The EU may try tariffs.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/24/eu-threatens-china-with-carbon-pricing-import-duties/

Lynn
J. Clarke
2020-01-24 23:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea. I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ? The EU may try tariffs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/24/eu-threatens-china-with-carbon-pricing-import-duties/
Yep, China's the real problem. The greenies seem to think that the US
has some obligation to "lead the world". If nothing we do can get
carbon emissions to the IPCC target then it's time to look for another
solution, not unilaterally destroy what's left of our economy.
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 23:53:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 16:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea. I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ? The EU may try tariffs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/24/eu-threatens-china-with-carbon-pricing-import-duties/
Yep, China's the real problem. The greenies seem to think that the US
has some obligation to "lead the world". If nothing we do can get
carbon emissions to the IPCC target then it's time to look for another
solution, not unilaterally destroy what's left of our economy.
No. We all have an obligation to do what we can to save ourselves.

Crying that your neighbour isn't helping to fight the fire that
threatens all your houses and refusing to help until he/she does is
beyond idiotic.
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 23:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every
minute.
No, that's weather.   And you know this.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
  Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a
worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
Because actually looking at what the vast majority of people learned in
the field has to say is far too taxing?
Post by Lynn McGuire
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea.  I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ?  The EU may try tariffs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/24/eu-threatens-china-with-carbon-pricing-import-duties/
Again: if there's a fire, are you going to stop working to put it out
because your neighbour's not helping?
William Hyde
2020-01-25 22:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
I'm afraid not. You are wrong, and willfully so. As you have admitted.
Post by Lynn McGuire
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea. I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
If we launch a solar shade and let CO2 rise to 2X, 3X, 4X it will at some time become a terrible problem. Following which it will become a catastrophe. Not in your lifetime, so what do you care?

Unless you have children, I suppose.
Post by Lynn McGuire
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
So get a lead on them with clean tech, and the world will beat a path to your door as your own emissions drop and they are stuck with obsolete factories.

Or would you rather invest in coal stocks? I hear Peabody energy stock is on sale.
Post by Lynn McGuire
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ?
Not per capita, which is what counts.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The EU may try tariffs.
If so, they should be aimed at us first.



William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-27 20:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
I'm afraid not. You are wrong, and willfully so. As you have admitted.
Post by Lynn McGuire
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea. I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
If we launch a solar shade and let CO2 rise to 2X, 3X, 4X it will at some time become a terrible problem. Following which it will become a catastrophe. Not in your lifetime, so what do you care?
Unless you have children, I suppose.
Post by Lynn McGuire
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
So get a lead on them with clean tech, and the world will beat a path to your door as your own emissions drop and they are stuck with obsolete factories.
Or would you rather invest in coal stocks? I hear Peabody energy stock is on sale.
Post by Lynn McGuire
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ?
Not per capita, which is what counts.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The EU may try tariffs.
If so, they should be aimed at us first.
William Hyde
The EU has large tariffs against the USA.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-27 21:20:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Not per capita, which is what counts.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The EU may try tariffs.
If so, they should be aimed at us first.
William Hyde
The EU has large tariffs against the USA.
1) The EU imposed tariffs on 2.4 Billion Euros of USA exports
2) The USA imposed tariffs on 21 Billion Dollars of European exports

(1) happened _after_ (2) chronologically.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-27 20:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
I'm afraid not. You are wrong, and willfully so. As you have admitted.
Post by Lynn McGuire
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea. I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
If we launch a solar shade and let CO2 rise to 2X, 3X, 4X it will at some time become a terrible problem. Following which it will become a catastrophe. Not in your lifetime, so what do you care?
Unless you have children, I suppose.
Post by Lynn McGuire
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
So get a lead on them with clean tech, and the world will beat a path to your door as your own emissions drop and they are stuck with obsolete factories.
Or would you rather invest in coal stocks? I hear Peabody energy stock is on sale.
Post by Lynn McGuire
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ?
Not per capita, which is what counts.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The EU may try tariffs.
If so, they should be aimed at us first.
William Hyde
I am sorry but this per capita thing makes no sense whatsoever. You are
implying that life should be fair. It is not.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-01-27 22:10:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every
minute.
No, that's weather.   And you know this.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
   Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a
worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
I'm afraid not.  You are wrong, and willfully so.  As you have admitted.
Post by Lynn McGuire
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea.  I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
If we launch a solar shade and let CO2 rise to 2X, 3X, 4X it will at
some time become a terrible problem.  Following which it will become a
catastrophe.  Not in your lifetime, so what do you care?
Unless you have children, I suppose.
Post by Lynn McGuire
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
So get a lead on them with clean tech, and the world will beat a path
to your door as your own emissions drop and they are stuck with
obsolete factories.
Or would you rather invest in coal stocks?  I hear Peabody energy
stock is on sale.
Post by Lynn McGuire
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ?
Not per capita, which is what counts.
Post by Lynn McGuire
  The EU may try tariffs.
If so, they should be aimed at us first.
William Hyde
I am sorry but this per capita thing makes no sense whatsoever.  You are
implying that life should be fair.  It is not.
Lynn
That part has nothing to do with fairness, Lynn.

It has to do with what PEOPLE are actually causing the problem.
J. Clarke
2020-01-28 00:05:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 14:14:52 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real. It happens every day. Every hour, every minute.
No, that's weather. And you know this.
Post by Lynn McGuire
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Yes it is, the evidence is in and has been in for a long time.
Nor it is man-fixable except
Post by Lynn McGuire
through heroic means such as space umbrellas. Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
That would not stop ocean acidification, which in the end may be a worse problem than climate change.
William Hyde
About the man-made climate change, we have to agree to disagree.
I'm afraid not. You are wrong, and willfully so. As you have admitted.
Post by Lynn McGuire
About the ocean acidification, I have no idea. I have read a couple of
papers that say it is terrible problem or not a terrible problem.
If we launch a solar shade and let CO2 rise to 2X, 3X, 4X it will at some time become a terrible problem. Following which it will become a catastrophe. Not in your lifetime, so what do you care?
Unless you have children, I suppose.
Post by Lynn McGuire
So how are you going to stop China from doubling their CO2 production
So get a lead on them with clean tech, and the world will beat a path to your door as your own emissions drop and they are stuck with obsolete factories.
So how does "clean tech" result in products that people will buy?
People don't care how clean is the factory in which their stuff was
made, they care how much it costs and how well it works.
Post by William Hyde
Or would you rather invest in coal stocks? I hear Peabody energy stock is on sale.
Post by Lynn McGuire
over the next five or ten years as they are already the Earth's largest
CO2 generator ?
Not per capita, which is what counts.
Excuse me but what leads you to believe that the environoment gives
the tiniest fraction of a damn about "per capita"? If that was what
mattered we could solve the problem by holding total emissions
constant and doubling the population.

What matters to the environment is the total emissions worldwide. And
after signing Kyoto China increased their emissions immensely.
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
The EU may try tariffs.
If so, they should be aimed at us first.
William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-24 23:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.  Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
Limiting CO2 production is not a solution since it is not the problem.
Nor is limiting CO2 doable without extreme pressure on China and quite
possibly war.  China now has several hundred coal power plants and is
starting FIVE new coal power plants PER WEEK.  China already produces
twice as much CO2 as the USA and will soon be treble the USA.
Lynn
BTW, figure 1 in the following paper is a great illustration of where
climate change has been over the last 550 million years. We are at 14.5
C average global temperature right now. We are in an ice age since at
least one polar cap is frozen (both polar caps are frozen now, very
unusual).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/

The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time. In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft. Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-01-24 23:48:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.  Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
Limiting CO2 production is not a solution since it is not the problem.
Nor is limiting CO2 doable without extreme pressure on China and quite
possibly war.  China now has several hundred coal power plants and is
starting FIVE new coal power plants PER WEEK.  China already produces
twice as much CO2 as the USA and will soon be treble the USA.
Lynn
BTW, figure 1 in the following paper is a great illustration of where
climate change has been over the last 550 million years.  We are at 14.5
C average global temperature right now.  We are in an ice age since at
least one polar cap is frozen (both polar caps are frozen now, very
unusual).
   https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/
It may be very good...

...it's just irrelevant.
Post by Lynn McGuire
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.  In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.  Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.
Why would it be necessary for the ice caps to melt "in order" for this
to happen?

And by the way, Greenland is losing ice at the rate of something like
270 gigatonnes a year. That's 270 BILLION cubic metres of water a year;
270 cubic kilometres.

<Loading Image...>
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-27 15:32:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.  In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.  Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.
Why would it be necessary for the ice caps to melt "in order" for this
to happen?
It wouldn't of course. And as the Arctic ice cap is floating, melting
it won't appreciably change MSL.

And if greenland, antarctica and the asian glaciers all melt, the rise
will be much more than 20 feet. It would also take a thousand years,
assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
Alan Baker
2020-01-27 16:22:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.  In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.  Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.
Why would it be necessary for the ice caps to melt "in order" for this
to happen?
It wouldn't of course. And as the Arctic ice cap is floating, melting
it won't appreciably change MSL.
And if greenland, antarctica and the asian glaciers all melt, the rise
will be much more than 20 feet. It would also take a thousand years,
assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
So then you're also saying that it would take much /less/ than a
thousand years for the rise to be (say) 3 feet.
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-27 17:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.  In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.  Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.
Why would it be necessary for the ice caps to melt "in order" for this
to happen?
It wouldn't of course. And as the Arctic ice cap is floating, melting
it won't appreciably change MSL.
And if greenland, antarctica and the asian glaciers all melt, the rise
will be much more than 20 feet. It would also take a thousand years,
assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
So then you're also saying that it would take much /less/ than a
thousand years for the rise to be (say) 3 feet.
All I said above was that it would take a thousand years (or more)
to melt it all assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.

Given that, one might conclude that over those thousand years,
MLS would rise gradually and continuously. IIRC, there's
something like 70 meters of potential rise were it all to melt.
Alan Baker
2020-01-27 17:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.  In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.  Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.
Why would it be necessary for the ice caps to melt "in order" for this
to happen?
It wouldn't of course. And as the Arctic ice cap is floating, melting
it won't appreciably change MSL.
And if greenland, antarctica and the asian glaciers all melt, the rise
will be much more than 20 feet. It would also take a thousand years,
assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
So then you're also saying that it would take much /less/ than a
thousand years for the rise to be (say) 3 feet.
All I said above was that it would take a thousand years (or more)
to melt it all assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
Ummm... ...no.

You said it would rise "MUCH MORE than 20 feet".

Ergo, if would take it much less time than "a thousand years" to rise
/to/ 20 feet...

...and even less time than that for it to rise to much less than 20
feet, but still an amount that would cause us problems.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Given that, one might conclude that over those thousand years,
MLS would rise gradually and continuously. IIRC, there's
something like 70 meters of potential rise were it all to melt.
So if it would take a thousand years to melt all 70 metres...

...it /could/ take as little as 14 years for it to rise 1 metre (1,000/70).

I'm to predicting this, you understand: I'm just laying out the logical
corollaries to your statements.

:-)
Scott Lurndal
2020-01-27 18:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.  In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.  Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.
Why would it be necessary for the ice caps to melt "in order" for this
to happen?
It wouldn't of course. And as the Arctic ice cap is floating, melting
it won't appreciably change MSL.
And if greenland, antarctica and the asian glaciers all melt, the rise
will be much more than 20 feet. It would also take a thousand years,
assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
So then you're also saying that it would take much /less/ than a
thousand years for the rise to be (say) 3 feet.
All I said above was that it would take a thousand years (or more)
to melt it all assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
Ummm... ...no.
You said it would rise "MUCH MORE than 20 feet".
Ergo, if would take it much less time than "a thousand years" to rise
/to/ 20 feet...
...and even less time than that for it to rise to much less than 20
feet, but still an amount that would cause us problems.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Given that, one might conclude that over those thousand years,
MLS would rise gradually and continuously. IIRC, there's
something like 70 meters of potential rise were it all to melt.
So if it would take a thousand years to melt all 70 metres...
...it /could/ take as little as 14 years for it to rise 1 metre (1,000/70).
Assuming linearity; It's more likely to be exponential as the albedo
changes with the loss of ice and the the atmosphere holds more heat,
which would push the bulk of the melting towards the end of the period
I suspect.
Alan Baker
2020-01-27 19:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.  In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
have to melt and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.  Not gonna
happen in our lifetimes at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
per decade.
Why would it be necessary for the ice caps to melt "in order" for this
to happen?
It wouldn't of course. And as the Arctic ice cap is floating, melting
it won't appreciably change MSL.
And if greenland, antarctica and the asian glaciers all melt, the rise
will be much more than 20 feet. It would also take a thousand years,
assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
So then you're also saying that it would take much /less/ than a
thousand years for the rise to be (say) 3 feet.
All I said above was that it would take a thousand years (or more)
to melt it all assuming the earth otherwise remains habitable.
Ummm... ...no.
You said it would rise "MUCH MORE than 20 feet".
Ergo, if would take it much less time than "a thousand years" to rise
/to/ 20 feet...
...and even less time than that for it to rise to much less than 20
feet, but still an amount that would cause us problems.
Post by Scott Lurndal
Given that, one might conclude that over those thousand years,
MLS would rise gradually and continuously. IIRC, there's
something like 70 meters of potential rise were it all to melt.
So if it would take a thousand years to melt all 70 metres...
...it /could/ take as little as 14 years for it to rise 1 metre (1,000/70).
Assuming linearity; It's more likely to be exponential as the albedo
changes with the loss of ice and the the atmosphere holds more heat,
which would push the bulk of the melting towards the end of the period
I suspect.
That would influence it a lot...

...but we're talking about 1/70th of the change being a huge problem.
William Hyde
2020-01-27 20:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.  Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
Limiting CO2 production is not a solution since it is not the problem.
Nor is limiting CO2 doable without extreme pressure on China and quite
possibly war.  China now has several hundred coal power plants and is
starting FIVE new coal power plants PER WEEK.  China already produces
twice as much CO2 as the USA and will soon be treble the USA.
Lynn
BTW, figure 1 in the following paper is a great illustration of where
climate change has been over the last 550 million years. We are at 14.5
C average global temperature right now. We are in an ice age since at
least one polar cap is frozen (both polar caps are frozen now, very
unusual).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.
Accepting this for the sake of argument.

In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
Post by Lynn McGuire
have to melt
If we rise very slowly to 19.8, the ice caps will melt along the way. But if we rise rapidly they'll still be around, if smaller. Despite the sunlight they reflect into space they cannot by themselves keep the earth cool.

and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.

If the ice sheets melt the ocean rise will be more like 200 feet. That is very old news, does your site really get it wrong or was that a typo?

You would get twenty feet by melting half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica.

Not gonna
Post by Lynn McGuire
happen in our lifetimes
That's all I need worry about? You have kids, right?

at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
Post by Lynn McGuire
per decade.
Globally, 0.1 per decade. More than that in the arctic. It's a huge mistake to confuse the planetary average with local change.

Here we reach an area where our knowledge is too limited to be certain of much. We do know that ice sheets will eventually vanish with sufficiently warm temperatures - one study predicted that by melting and flow, the Greenland ice sheet would vanish within 1000 years, given a 5.5C warming of that area (i.e. a 2.5 warming of the planet).

But that was twenty years ago, and we now know a lot about ice sheets and their interactions with air and ocean that were not in that model. None of it was good news. And Greenland is melting far faster than we expected back then.

Ice sheets can vanish by melting, which is comparatively slow, but they can also vanish more rapidly, by collapse (i.e. rapid flow into the sea). The former we have a handle on, the latter we know much less about. Warmer ice flows more rapidly, ice with a bed lubricated by meltwater flows more rapidly and speed of flow varies roughly as the cube of surface slope. So the potential for behavior we have not yet seen is there. Especially at the smaller scales of ice streams (rivers of ice within the ice sheet, roughly) which discharge a lot of ice into the sea.

Of the world's ice sheets, it is the West Antarctic I worry about. One of its three basins is marine-based, and potentially very unstable. Once it melts back past its support points it could collapse very rapidly, over a few decades. Depending on how much of it collapses, this will add 1-2 meters of sea level in that time. If things go on as they are, this will happen. Not today, not this decade (I think), possibly not even this century.

Much of Greenland's ice sheet is also based below sea level, but deep in the interior of the island. It does not seem at risk from this mechanism of collapse. But it did lose half it's volume in the last interglacial, which would be three meters of sea level rise.

So, we think we have a handle on the melting of ice sheets, but as to rapid catastrophic decay, we are still largely in the dark. You can gamble that nothing will happen, but you're the one with (grand?)children. I'm the one living 312 feet above sea level.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-27 20:51:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.  Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
Limiting CO2 production is not a solution since it is not the problem.
Nor is limiting CO2 doable without extreme pressure on China and quite
possibly war.  China now has several hundred coal power plants and is
starting FIVE new coal power plants PER WEEK.  China already produces
twice as much CO2 as the USA and will soon be treble the USA.
Lynn
BTW, figure 1 in the following paper is a great illustration of where
climate change has been over the last 550 million years. We are at 14.5
C average global temperature right now. We are in an ice age since at
least one polar cap is frozen (both polar caps are frozen now, very
unusual).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.
Accepting this for the sake of argument.
In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
Post by Lynn McGuire
have to melt
If we rise very slowly to 19.8, the ice caps will melt along the way. But if we rise rapidly they'll still be around, if smaller. Despite the sunlight they reflect into space they cannot by themselves keep the earth cool.
and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.
If the ice sheets melt the ocean rise will be more like 200 feet. That is very old news, does your site really get it wrong or was that a typo?
You would get twenty feet by melting half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica.
Not gonna
Post by Lynn McGuire
happen in our lifetimes
That's all I need worry about? You have kids, right?
at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
Post by Lynn McGuire
per decade.
Globally, 0.1 per decade. More than that in the arctic. It's a huge mistake to confuse the planetary average with local change.
Here we reach an area where our knowledge is too limited to be certain of much. We do know that ice sheets will eventually vanish with sufficiently warm temperatures - one study predicted that by melting and flow, the Greenland ice sheet would vanish within 1000 years, given a 5.5C warming of that area (i.e. a 2.5 warming of the planet).
But that was twenty years ago, and we now know a lot about ice sheets and their interactions with air and ocean that were not in that model. None of it was good news. And Greenland is melting far faster than we expected back then.
Ice sheets can vanish by melting, which is comparatively slow, but they can also vanish more rapidly, by collapse (i.e. rapid flow into the sea). The former we have a handle on, the latter we know much less about. Warmer ice flows more rapidly, ice with a bed lubricated by meltwater flows more rapidly and speed of flow varies roughly as the cube of surface slope. So the potential for behavior we have not yet seen is there. Especially at the smaller scales of ice streams (rivers of ice within the ice sheet, roughly) which discharge a lot of ice into the sea.
Of the world's ice sheets, it is the West Antarctic I worry about. One of its three basins is marine-based, and potentially very unstable. Once it melts back past its support points it could collapse very rapidly, over a few decades. Depending on how much of it collapses, this will add 1-2 meters of sea level in that time. If things go on as they are, this will happen. Not today, not this decade (I think), possibly not even this century.
Much of Greenland's ice sheet is also based below sea level, but deep in the interior of the island. It does not seem at risk from this mechanism of collapse. But it did lose half it's volume in the last interglacial, which would be three meters of sea level rise.
So, we think we have a handle on the melting of ice sheets, but as to rapid catastrophic decay, we are still largely in the dark. You can gamble that nothing will happen, but you're the one with (grand?)children. I'm the one living 312 feet above sea level.
William Hyde
I was thinking that the polar caps are supposed to melt before Greenland
and Iceland but now am not sure.

No grandchildren. The house is at 81 ft above sea level.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-01-27 22:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.  Nor it is man-fixable except
through heroic means such as space umbrellas.  Building and deploying
space umbrellas to shield the Earth from some portion of Sol's rays
would be very doable for a company like SpaceX.
Limiting CO2 production is not a solution since it is not the problem.
Nor is limiting CO2 doable without extreme pressure on China and quite
possibly war.  China now has several hundred coal power plants and is
starting FIVE new coal power plants PER WEEK.  China already produces
twice as much CO2 as the USA and will soon be treble the USA.
Lynn
BTW, figure 1 in the following paper is a great illustration of where
climate change has been over the last 550 million years.  We are at 14.5
C average global temperature right now.  We are in an ice age since at
least one polar cap is frozen (both polar caps are frozen now, very
unusual).
     https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/03/earths-ice-ages/
The UN says that we are headed to 19.8 C average global temperature over
some period of time.
Accepting this for the sake of argument.
   In order for this to happen, both ice caps will
Post by Lynn McGuire
have to melt
If we rise very slowly to 19.8, the ice caps will melt along the way.
But if we rise rapidly they'll still be around, if smaller.  Despite
the sunlight they reflect into space they cannot by themselves keep
the earth cool.
  and the oceans will rise some 10 to 20 ft.
If the ice sheets melt the ocean rise will be more like 200 feet.
That is very old news, does your site really get it wrong or was that
a typo?
You would get twenty feet by melting half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica.
  Not gonna
Post by Lynn McGuire
happen in our lifetimes
That's all I need worry about?  You have kids, right?
  at a average global temperature rise of 0.1 C
Post by Lynn McGuire
per decade.
Globally, 0.1 per decade.   More than that in the arctic.  It's a huge
mistake to confuse the planetary average with local change.
Here we reach an area where our knowledge is too limited to be certain
of much.  We do know that ice sheets will eventually vanish with
sufficiently warm temperatures - one study predicted that by melting
and flow, the Greenland ice sheet would vanish within 1000 years,
given a 5.5C warming of  that area (i.e. a 2.5 warming of the planet).
But that was twenty years ago, and we now know a lot about ice sheets
and their interactions with air and ocean that were not in that model.
None of it was good news. And Greenland is melting far faster than we
expected back then.
Ice sheets can vanish by melting, which is comparatively slow, but
they can also vanish more rapidly, by collapse (i.e. rapid flow into
the sea).  The former we have a handle on, the latter we know much
less about.  Warmer ice flows more rapidly, ice with a bed lubricated
by meltwater flows more rapidly and speed of flow varies roughly as
the cube of surface slope.  So the potential for behavior we have not
yet seen is there.  Especially at the smaller scales of ice streams
(rivers of ice within the ice sheet, roughly) which discharge a lot of
ice into the sea.
Of the world's ice sheets, it is the West Antarctic I worry about.
One of its three basins is marine-based, and potentially very
unstable.  Once it melts back past its support points it could
collapse very rapidly, over a few decades. Depending on how much of it
collapses, this will add 1-2 meters of sea level in that time.  If
things go on as they are, this will happen. Not today, not this decade
(I think), possibly not even this century.
Much of Greenland's ice sheet is also based below sea level, but deep
in the interior of the island.   It does not seem at risk from this
mechanism of collapse.  But it did lose half it's volume in the last
interglacial, which would be three meters of sea level rise.
So, we think we have a handle on the melting of ice sheets, but as to
rapid catastrophic decay, we are still largely in the dark.  You can
gamble that nothing will happen, but you're the one with
(grand?)children.  I'm the one living 312 feet above sea level.
William Hyde
I was thinking that the polar caps are supposed to melt before Greenland
and Iceland but now am not sure.
No grandchildren.  The house is at 81 ft above sea level.
Lynn
And as long as you've got yours...
David Johnston
2020-01-26 02:47:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-26 02:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
Because we're obviously not as capable as slime! :P
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-27 20:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can. The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system. Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.

Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves. And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25

Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-27 21:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
   https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Lynn
BTW, Musk announced that he expects the cost to LEO for Starship is
going to be $20/lb. At $20/lb, the amount of space loads for SpaceX
will explode. Figuratively.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-01-27 22:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the
huge fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar
umbrellas will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we
want to. Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a
fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And
just wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in
orbit start going up.
    https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Lynn
BTW, Musk announced that he expects the cost to LEO for Starship is
going to be $20/lb.  At $20/lb, the amount of space loads for SpaceX
will explode.  Figuratively.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-musk.html
Lynn
10,000 10 square kilometre shades get you 0.08% coverage, Lynn...

...and you'll get less than that much cooling because if you want to
beam that power to earth, you are going to generate heat.
Alan Baker
2020-01-27 22:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
   https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
You REALLY want to do the math on that one...

The earth is a (rough) sphere, 8,000 miles (roughly but Wikipedia puts
it ant 12,272km) in diameter.

That means the area of the earth's flat projection is:

118,282,521 square kilometres.

Put up ten thousand of your solar power beam satellites and you will
block 0.08% of the sun's radiation.

And you claim to be an engineer?
h***@gmail.com
2020-01-27 23:22:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can. The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system. Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
There's evidence that the increased acidification of the oceans is already having an impact on marine life
https://sfist.com/2020/01/26/ocean-acidification-is-literally-dissolving-the-shells-of-dungeness-crabs/

and that's apart from the cost of building a shade in orbit, maintaining it etc...

Moving to renewables is likely to be a lot cheaper.
J. Clarke
2020-01-28 00:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can. The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system. Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves. And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers. The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions. You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth. So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-28 00:56:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can. The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system. Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves. And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers. The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions. You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth. So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
It was a joke. Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there. But they will be in GEO.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-01-28 00:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
    https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers.  The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions.  You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth.  So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Lynn
It was a joke.  Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there.  But they will be in GEO.
Lynn
A couple of thousand won't even make a dent.

Run...

...the...

...numbers.
J. Clarke
2020-01-28 01:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can. The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system. Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves. And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers. The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions. You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth. So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
It was a joke. Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there. But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations. Not a
lot of real estate in GEO. 157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful). With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
Lynn McGuire
2020-01-28 02:06:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can. The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system. Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves. And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers. The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions. You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth. So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
It was a joke. Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there. But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations. Not a
lot of real estate in GEO. 157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful). With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
The first new orbital "space stations" will be a couple of gas stations
for Starships to dock and refuel at. The orbital gas stations will grow
over time as you mention. I am just not sure if they are going to be at
LEO, MEO, or GEO. I hope at least MEO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits

Again, I am wondering where SpaceX's money is coming from. 1,000
Starships plus 2 ? 10 ? 25 ? space stations plus this and that rolls up
to a trillion dollars very quickly. Ballistic flights from New York to
Tokyo at $5,000 a seat for a 35 minute flight won't generate that much
cash. At least not quickly.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2020-01-28 02:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the
huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar
umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And
just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
     https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers.  The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions.  You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth.  So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Lynn
It was a joke.  Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there.  But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations.  Not a
lot of real estate in GEO.  157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful).  With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
The first new orbital "space stations" will be a couple of gas stations
for Starships to dock and refuel at.  The orbital gas stations will grow
over time as you mention.  I am just not sure if they are going to be at
LEO, MEO, or GEO.  I hope at least MEO.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
The next orbital space station just might be orbiting Luna. In the same
way that Mercury and Gemini were ramp-up and testing for Apollo, the
first Ares missions are currently planned to be to Luna for landing and
building a lunar orbiting station.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
J. Clarke
2020-01-28 04:53:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:26:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the
huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar
umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And
just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
     https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers.  The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions.  You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth.  So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Lynn
It was a joke.  Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there.  But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations.  Not a
lot of real estate in GEO.  157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful).  With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
The first new orbital "space stations" will be a couple of gas stations
for Starships to dock and refuel at.  The orbital gas stations will grow
over time as you mention.  I am just not sure if they are going to be at
LEO, MEO, or GEO.  I hope at least MEO.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
The next orbital space station just might be orbiting Luna. In the same
way that Mercury and Gemini were ramp-up and testing for Apollo, the
first Ares missions are currently planned to be to Luna for landing and
building a lunar orbiting station.
That's that idiotic lunar gateway. The way it is likely to shake out
is that NASA spends billions launching the thing and then Elon Musk
pops by one weekend and invites NASA's crew to a party in a _real_
spaceship.

Or to put it another way, if SpaceX wants a Lunar Gateway, they'll
just put a Starship in lunar orbit and leave it there.

NASA is becoming less and less and less relevant.
Kevrob
2020-01-28 05:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:26:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every
minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the
huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar
umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And
just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
     https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers.  The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions.  You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth.  So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Lynn
It was a joke.  Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there.  But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations.  Not a
lot of real estate in GEO.  157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful).  With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
The first new orbital "space stations" will be a couple of gas stations
for Starships to dock and refuel at.  The orbital gas stations will grow
over time as you mention.  I am just not sure if they are going to be at
LEO, MEO, or GEO.  I hope at least MEO.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
The next orbital space station just might be orbiting Luna. In the same
way that Mercury and Gemini were ramp-up and testing for Apollo, the
first Ares missions are currently planned to be to Luna for landing and
building a lunar orbiting station.
That's that idiotic lunar gateway. The way it is likely to shake out
is that NASA spends billions launching the thing and then Elon Musk
pops by one weekend and invites NASA's crew to a party in a _real_
spaceship.
Or to put it another way, if SpaceX wants a Lunar Gateway, they'll
just put a Starship in lunar orbit and leave it there.
NASA is becoming less and less and less relevant.
Lunar gateway only makes sense if mining the moon is
a reasonable project. Big ships stay in orbit, with
"tugs" taking containers of regolith up to meet them.
There's a moon mining thread going on. Processing on
the moon first would mean less sent to orbit. If the
same resources can be found on asteroids, doing it
in a gravity well, even at 1/6 G, might not be economic.
Or, the gravity might be useful for some processes?
Maybe both will make sense, but which first?

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-01-29 00:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:26:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every
minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the
huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar
umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And
just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
     https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers.  The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions.  You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth.  So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Lynn
It was a joke.  Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there.  But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations.  Not a
lot of real estate in GEO.  157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful).  With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
The first new orbital "space stations" will be a couple of gas stations
for Starships to dock and refuel at.  The orbital gas stations will grow
over time as you mention.  I am just not sure if they are going to be at
LEO, MEO, or GEO.  I hope at least MEO.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
The next orbital space station just might be orbiting Luna. In the same
way that Mercury and Gemini were ramp-up and testing for Apollo, the
first Ares missions are currently planned to be to Luna for landing and
building a lunar orbiting station.
That's that idiotic lunar gateway. The way it is likely to shake out
is that NASA spends billions launching the thing and then Elon Musk
pops by one weekend and invites NASA's crew to a party in a _real_
spaceship.
Or to put it another way, if SpaceX wants a Lunar Gateway, they'll
just put a Starship in lunar orbit and leave it there.
NASA is becoming less and less and less relevant.
Lunar gateway only makes sense if mining the moon is
a reasonable project. Big ships stay in orbit, with
"tugs" taking containers of regolith up to meet them.
There's a moon mining thread going on. Processing on
the moon first would mean less sent to orbit. If the
same resources can be found on asteroids, doing it
in a gravity well, even at 1/6 G, might not be economic.
Or, the gravity might be useful for some processes?
Maybe both will make sense, but which first?
Mass driver, bucket at L5.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
Peter Trei
2020-01-29 04:49:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:26:20 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake*
science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every
minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can.  The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the
huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system.  Putting up solar
umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's
game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves.  And
just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
     https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers.  The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions.  You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth.  So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Lynn
It was a joke.  Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there.  But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations.  Not a
lot of real estate in GEO.  157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful).  With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
The first new orbital "space stations" will be a couple of gas stations
for Starships to dock and refuel at.  The orbital gas stations will grow
over time as you mention.  I am just not sure if they are going to be at
LEO, MEO, or GEO.  I hope at least MEO.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
The next orbital space station just might be orbiting Luna. In the same
way that Mercury and Gemini were ramp-up and testing for Apollo, the
first Ares missions are currently planned to be to Luna for landing and
building a lunar orbiting station.
That's that idiotic lunar gateway. The way it is likely to shake out
is that NASA spends billions launching the thing and then Elon Musk
pops by one weekend and invites NASA's crew to a party in a _real_
spaceship.
Or to put it another way, if SpaceX wants a Lunar Gateway, they'll
just put a Starship in lunar orbit and leave it there.
NASA is becoming less and less and less relevant.
Lunar gateway only makes sense if mining the moon is
a reasonable project. Big ships stay in orbit, with
"tugs" taking containers of regolith up to meet them.
There's a moon mining thread going on. Processing on
the moon first would mean less sent to orbit. If the
same resources can be found on asteroids, doing it
in a gravity well, even at 1/6 G, might not be economic.
Or, the gravity might be useful for some processes?
Maybe both will make sense, but which first?
Mass driver, bucket at L5.
Careful. If you give the Loonies and Mike a lunar mass driver, they
may have thoughts of independence.

pt

J. Clarke
2020-01-28 04:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 20:06:01 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:56:45 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:58:29 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David Johnston
Post by Joy Beeson
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:46:30 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Man-made Climate Change is Fake Science.
The proposed remedies for Climate Change aren't even *fake* science.
And they are pretty poor fantasy.
Climate Change is real.  It happens every day.  Every hour, every minute.
But Climate Change is not man-made.
Why can't we change climate?
We can. The main driver of the climate in the Solar System is the huge
fusion reactor in the center of the system. Putting up solar umbrellas
will reduce any temperature effects on the planet that we want to.
Modulating the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a fool's game.
Shoot, with the number of internet relay satellites that SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and the other service I cannot remember at the moment, the
60,000 satellites may function as solar umbrellas themselves. And just
wait until the 10 square kilometer solar power beam satellites in orbit
start going up.
https://www.gocomics.com/overthehedge/2020/01/25
Run the numbers. The satellites are approximately 4 x 1.8 meters in
their largest dimensions. You'll find that they represent a very,
very tiny fraction of the projected area of the Earth. So do 10
square kilometer solar power beam satellites.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
It was a joke. Until we get a couple of thousand solar power satellites
up there. But they will be in GEO.
I suspect that the powersats will evolve into space stations. Not a
lot of real estate in GEO. 157,000 miles diameter sounds like a lot
of room but it's not all usable due to location (beaming massive
amounts of power down to an empty spot in the middle of an ocean isn't
all that useful). With big structures in place already I suspect that
the comsat, weathersat, and so on functions will all be added to the
powersat (may as well take advantage of having massive amounts of
power available and an immense antenna area, and the incremental cost
should be peanuts) and instead of throwing the things away when they
break have a crew on hand to fix them.
The first new orbital "space stations" will be a couple of gas stations
for Starships to dock and refuel at. The orbital gas stations will grow
over time as you mention. I am just not sure if they are going to be at
LEO, MEO, or GEO. I hope at least MEO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
Again, I am wondering where SpaceX's money is coming from. 1,000
Starships plus 2 ? 10 ? 25 ? space stations plus this and that rolls up
to a trillion dollars very quickly. Ballistic flights from New York to
Tokyo at $5,000 a seat for a 35 minute flight won't generate that much
cash. At least not quickly.
Starlink. Low latency Internet. Orbital launches. The thousand
Starships come first--that gives the intercity travel and the cheap
access to orbit. I think he's banking on that cheap access leading to
a massive growth in space operations.

And SpaceX isn't planning on space stations. Starship is not refueled
at a station. You flight a Starship and a tanker, refuel from the
tanker, the tanker lands.

Bigelow is the outfit that is working on the space stations. One of
them anyway. Inflatable habs. BIG inflatable habs. The biggest one
would be a full load for Super Heavy, but it puts up twice the
pressurized volume of the ISS in one shot. And remember that that's a
2 million dollar shot, not a billion dollar shot like NASA would need.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
David Johnston
2020-01-23 01:08:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.
It often goes up to the interstellar state. And Earth is often left a
depopulated husk.


When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
Post by a***@gmail.com
colony,
Most nations won't be able to get there. But yes, assuming that people
actually think of a reason why seriously colonizing Mars would pay, you
would expect to see multiple nations each claiming their own patch of
land.

or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth
Post by a***@gmail.com
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.
No
Post by a***@gmail.com
If it is inevitable, why wait?
It is in fact evitable.

The fact that science fiction authors treat entire planets as cities or
small towns in interstellar nations that correspond to the United States
or the Roman Empire...or in one bizarre case Canada, is merely a failure
to grasp the sheer scale of the galaxy.

However the default assumption, assuming FTL drives, is that the galaxy
is so large that there's no problem with one colonizing entity or
another claiming an entire planet because they were the first to camp on
it. The competing colonizers can simply move on to the next unclaimed
planet. The idea that planetary governments will be the default when
humanity hasn't even left the solar system is unrealistic.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.
Your suspicion is wrong.
a***@gmail.com
2020-01-23 01:39:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by a***@gmail.com
In SF, the unit of state, often goes up from the nation state to the
planet state.
It often goes up to the interstellar state. And Earth is often left a
depopulated husk.
You are right. Universal transportation and communication systems can help form a universal state. But if there is no FTL communication and transportation, then perhaps we will see planet states. Or perhaps star states.
Post by David Johnston
When we colonise Mars, will each nation create its own
Post by a***@gmail.com
colony,
Most nations won't be able to get there. But yes, assuming that people
actually think of a reason why seriously colonizing Mars would pay, you
would expect to see multiple nations each claiming their own patch of
land.
It doesn't seem fair that the richest nations can claim the land and resources of Mars. But whoever said life is fair?

Abhinav Lal

"Who benefits?"
Post by David Johnston
or will there be a colony for all of humanity. Will earth
Post by a***@gmail.com
rule Mars, or will Mars want independence?
As we face global challenges like climate change, asteroid/comet
strikes etc, there is a need for global cooperation. But earth
remains fragmented into nation states competing against each other
economically and politically.
When we transition to interplanetary civilization, will we form a
loosely bound planetary union.
No
Post by a***@gmail.com
If it is inevitable, why wait?
It is in fact evitable.
The fact that science fiction authors treat entire planets as cities or
small towns in interstellar nations that correspond to the United States
or the Roman Empire...or in one bizarre case Canada, is merely a failure
to grasp the sheer scale of the galaxy.
However the default assumption, assuming FTL drives, is that the galaxy
is so large that there's no problem with one colonizing entity or
another claiming an entire planet because they were the first to camp on
it. The competing colonizers can simply move on to the next unclaimed
planet. The idea that planetary governments will be the default when
humanity hasn't even left the solar system is unrealistic.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I suspect that there is already a shadow government that rules the
world.
Your suspicion is wrong.
Loading...