Video: Homer Evolves
hulu.com has some classic Simpsons stuff in high quality on YouTube. And lo, for it may be embedded: the Homer Evolution Montage.
hulu.com has some classic Simpsons stuff in high quality on YouTube. And lo, for it may be embedded: the Homer Evolution Montage.
1 | _RememberTonyC Sat, Oct 24, 2009 3:46:08pm |
if krispy kreme had used homer as it’s “spokesperson,” they’d be in much better shape as a company …
2 | _RememberTonyC Sat, Oct 24, 2009 3:48:38pm |
and while sarah palin is not an evolution person, i think homer would be a sarah palin person
3 | wrenchwench Sat, Oct 24, 2009 3:49:07pm |
That looked like Moe going in the other direction.
5 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 3:50:06pm |
No, I’m sorry, there are too many gaps in the record. Besides there’s no new information created, and Homer is irreversibly complex…//
6 | _RememberTonyC Sat, Oct 24, 2009 3:54:22pm |
for fans of ESPN’s PTI …
Tony Kornheiser looks like Krusty the Clown
Krusty: Image: krusty-the-clown.jpg
Tony: Image: t1_kornheiser.jpg
We report, you decide :)
7 | Cathypop Sat, Oct 24, 2009 3:55:50pm |
re: #6 _RememberTonyC
for fans of ESPN’s PTI …
Tony Kornheiser looks like Krusty the Clown
Krusty: [Link: www.ugo.com…]
Tony: [Link: tastyburger.files.wordpress.com…]
We report, you decide :)
EGADS! Twins. EEEWWW!
8 | enoughalready Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:00:21pm |
No. Sorry. I can’t joke about evolution today. Not after the raving lunatic I had in my house yesterday.
9 | Cathypop Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:02:39pm |
re: #8 enoughalready
No. Sorry. I can’t joke about evolution today. Not after the raving lunatic I had in my house yesterday.
E-mail it to him.
(Evil laugh)
10 | The Sanity Inspector Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:03:20pm |
re: #5 John Neverbend
No, I’m sorry, there are too many gaps in the record. Besides there’s no new information created, and Homer is irreduciibly complex…//
FTFY
11 | metrolibertarian Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:04:11pm |
I’m open to all kinds of new ideas… what the… PEAS? WITH THE ONIONS? WHAT THE HELL!?
12 | The Sanity Inspector Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:04:23pm |
That reminds me: I’m due for another fight with my young kids about why they aren’t allowed to watch Family Guy like “all the other kids” in their class are.
13 | A Man for all Seasons Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:05:03pm |
re: #6 _RememberTonyC
for fans of ESPN’s PTI …
Tony Kornheiser looks like Krusty the Clown
Krusty: [Link: www.ugo.com…]
Tony: [Link: tastyburger.files.wordpress.com…]
We report, you decide :)
LOL
Awesome!
14 | Four More Tears Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:06:31pm |
re: #12 The Sanity Inspector
I love Family Guy because I’m, well… immature, but no way would I allow kids to watch it.
15 | Athens Runaway Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:06:51pm |
re: #2 _RememberTonyC
and while sarah palin is not an evolution person, i think homer would be a sarah palin person
Homer voted for Obama in the TV show, so doubtful.
16 | _RememberTonyC Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:08:41pm |
re: #15 Athens Runaway
Homer voted for Obama in the TV show, so doubtful.
thus proving that not all FOX personalities are anti-Obama. Will the White House acknowledge this?
/ (need I?)
17 | metrolibertarian Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:09:13pm |
re: #15 Athens Runaway
He was also cursing liberals in the episode regarding Fox News and the FCC.
18 | Barrett Brown Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:10:12pm |
The thing about references to evolution in popular culture is that creationists have a tendency to see them as being thrown in intentionally as part of a concerted and conscious effort to promote godless materialism. Charles, you mentioned you read my book; you may recall the part where the fellow with one of those creationist outfits points out that, in an episode of the Munsters, some boat picks Herman out of the water and the crew mistakes him for “the missing link.”
As amusing at that is, it’s a huge problem. So many firmly religious Americans see an assault on their most fundamental beliefs from every corner. This, as you’ve experienced for yourself, makes them rather paranoid.
Another good example: the first piece I wrote on R.S. McCain concerned a blog post on teen pregnancy, specifically a study published in the journal Reproductive Health that showed higher rates of teen pregnancy among the religious. McCain was certain that this whole thing had been coordinated as means to attack religion. It does not occur to him or to others like him that scientists and sitcom writers alike very well just be going about their business, as opposed to intentionally trying to strike a blow against the religious. Of course, this is not to say that TV writers, for instance, do not sometimes throw their opinions into their output in a ham-fisted and irritating manner - they often do, and of course a disproportionate number of them are generally secular. But sometimes a Herman Munster is just a Herman Munster.
Also, the cartoonist fellow is all upset because I posted my parody version of his anti-Johnson cartoon, and is commanding me to take it down over at True/Slant, where he’s taken to posting confused comments; I think we’ll see a few more scattered lulz from the fellow over the next few days.
19 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:11:09pm |
re: #18 Barrett Brown
I want to say that I am very happy to see you here. I have throughly enjoyed your posts.
20 | A Man for all Seasons Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:12:11pm |
re: #19 ludwigvanquixote
I want to say that I am very happy to see you here. I have throughly enjoyed your posts.
Good evening Ludwig.. I like Brown’s post also
21 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:12:25pm |
Also, this is just a quick post Havdalah hello. I have a hot date in the lab tonight with the lasers.
However, while they are running, I am very likely to hop on and off.
22 | enoughalready Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:12:41pm |
re: #9 Cathypop
E-mail it to him.
(Evil laugh)
If I thought it would make a difference I would (or if he had the ability to laugh at himself). But I have met his type before and they don’t really react well to having their beliefs questioned. Generally they have so much invested in their “faith” that they have a habit of becoming rather upset when that happens.
23 | bluecheese Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:12:56pm |
This is off topic.
But I found this youtube clip amusing.
FOX’s Shep Smith goes off the deep end - “The Apocalypse”
same link below.
24 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:13:07pm |
re: #20 HoosierHoops
Good evening Ludwig.. I like Brown’s post also
Hey buddy, you wanted to ask me a question about orbital variations yesterday around sundown. I have a little time if you are interested to get into it now if you wish.
25 | metrolibertarian Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:15:27pm |
re: #18 Barrett Brown
Another good example: the first piece I wrote on R.S. McCain concerned a blog post on teen pregnancy, specifically a study published in the journal Reproductive Health that showed higher rates of teen pregnancy among the religious. McCain was certain that this whole thing had been coordinated as means to attack religion.
I’m also assuming that the fact that religious teens are far less likely to use contraception as opposed to their more secular “brethren” while at the same time not actually being radically less sexually active didn’t cross McCain’s mind.
26 | The Sanity Inspector Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:16:38pm |
re: #14 JasonA
I love Family Guy because I’m, well… immature, but no way would I allow kids to watch it.
I relented once, and let them. I lasted past a couple of farts, until the first masturbation joke. GONNGGG!!!
27 | Athens Runaway Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:17:02pm |
re: #17 metrolibertarian
He was also cursing liberals in the episode regarding Fox News and the FCC.
So what’s that say if he repeats the anger lines he hears from Fox News in one episode, but decides to vote for Obama in another? That he’s easily led and doesn’t think about what he hears, he just blindly accepts it and internalizes it as his opinion?
(I just tracked down the clip, liberal “news” site RawStory has it as an attack on Fox News.)
28 | Athens Runaway Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:19:29pm |
re: #26 The Sanity Inspector
I relented once, and let them. I lasted past a couple of farts, until the first masturbation joke. GONNGGG!!!
The joke about McCain buttons being part of the Nazi uniform was the final straw for me.
The Cleveland Show is much funnier because it doesn’t editorialize like its ancestor show incessantly does.
29 | wrenchwench Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:19:46pm |
re: #21 ludwigvanquixote
However, while they are running, I am very likely to hop on and off.
Hopping on and off running lasers sounds dangerous. Please be careful.
30 | A Man for all Seasons Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:20:24pm |
re: #24 ludwigvanquixote
Hey buddy, you wanted to ask me a question about orbital variations yesterday around sundown. I have a little time if you are interested to get into it now if you wish.
Well..I was more interested in understanding how Scientists compare AGW with natural cycles…
I’ve pretty much bought into the science of Solar Cycles thanks to the universe today.. we are at an all time low Solar Cycle and we can’t blame Global warming on the science.
How do you calculate natural cycles in AGW? How do we model it?
Regards
31 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:20:42pm |
re: #29 wrenchwench
Hopping on and off running lasers sounds dangerous. Please be careful.
Lol, I promise to be careful. The point is npt to dismount in front of them.
32 | Charles Johnson Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:22:02pm |
re: #18 Barrett Brown
As amusing at that is, it’s a huge problem. So many firmly religious Americans see an assault on their most fundamental beliefs from every corner. This, as you’ve experienced for yourself, makes them rather paranoid.
Yep, some of these folks just freak right out even at the mildest humor. They’re on a hair trigger offense watch. We’ve had quite few LGFers flounce off over the creationism thing, which used to surprise me when it first started — some of them immediately mutated into rabid Internet stalkers, like werewolves that never turn back into humans.
I’ve had my own run-ins with the Disco Institute gang — they’ve posted several attacks on me at their medievalist blog. I’ve also been attacked by Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham’s storefront. So I’ve succeeded in making the right kind of enemies.
33 | metrolibertarian Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:23:00pm |
re: #27 Athens Runaway
So what’s that say if he repeats the anger lines he hears from Fox News in one episode, but decides to vote for Obama in another? That he’s easily led and doesn’t think about what he hears, he just blindly accepts it and internalizes it as his opinion?
(I just tracked down the clip, liberal “news” site RawStory has it as an attack on Fox News.)
The episode is an attack on the corporate media as a whole from my point of view. But the fact of the matter is Homer really has no political opinion 99% of the time. There’s the ep I referred to, the Treehouse of Horror opening the other poster referred to, and the one scene where Homer calls Bush “Commander Cuckoo Bananas.” If Homer has a political opinion, it’s more about the context of the episode it seems, not anything fairly consistent.
However I am aware that Matt Groening himself is a liberal guy.
34 | Four More Tears Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:24:36pm |
re: #32 Charles
If a position is so vulnerable to attack then maybe it’s not such a great position.
35 | Athens Runaway Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:28:21pm |
re: #33 metrolibertarian
The episode is an attack on the corporate media as a whole from my point of view. But the fact of the matter is Homer really has no political opinion 99% of the time. There’s the ep I referred to, the Treehouse of Horror opening the other poster referred to, and the one scene where Homer calls Bush “Commander Cuckoo Bananas.” If Homer has a political opinion, it’s more about the context of the episode it seems, not anything fairly consistent.
However I am aware that Matt Groening himself is a liberal guy.
Highlighted for emphasis.
It’s best not to read too much into anything on TV, but OTOH it’s commonly accepted that Hollywood portrays conservatism and the GOP in a highly negative light, and that this isn’t done without a reason.
36 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:29:38pm |
re: #10 The Sanity Inspector
FTFY
Yes, silly me. I’m a physicist, and “irreversible” has stuck in my head.
37 | jaunte Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:30:02pm |
re: #18 Barrett Brown
So many firmly religious Americans see an assault on their most fundamental beliefs from every corner. This, as you’ve experienced for yourself, makes them rather paranoid.
These feelings, unfortunately, may be considered by some people to be a feature and not a bug, when it comes to mobilizing the firmly religious for political action.
38 | The Sanity Inspector Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:30:12pm |
re: #18 Barrett Brown
There is a certain mindset found among half-educated people of strong opinions. When confronted with something they don’t understand and which runs counter to their inclinations, they tend to regard it as a) nonsense, or b) out to get them, or c) both. Been there, done that, got the pen with the logo on it.
39 | Barrett Brown Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:30:18pm |
re: #19 ludwigvanquixote
I want to say that I am very happy to see you here. I have throughly enjoyed your posts.
Thanks, and I really do appreciate the encouragement.
41 | Dancing along the light of day Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:33:03pm |
re: #39 Barrett Brown
Thanks, and I really do appreciate the encouragement.
Keep up the good work!
You’ve got a lot of patience!
42 | boyo Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:34:23pm |
re: #28 Athens Runaway
The joke about McCain buttons being part of the Nazi uniform was the final straw for me.
The Cleveland Show is much funnier because it doesn’t editorialize like its ancestor show incessantly does.
you were for them before you were against them :)
43 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:36:39pm |
re: #8 enoughalready
No. Sorry. I can’t joke about evolution today. Not after the raving lunatic I had in my house yesterday.
Who was that? Not David Berlinski?
44 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:39:23pm |
re: #30 HoosierHoops
This is a very long and detailed discussion… I would love to start simply with some common misperceptions and then move to some other things. There are many cycles to calculate and people confuse a lot of what they are and what they mean.
If I could, I would love to cler up a point of confusion I have seen in several posters here about the season and solar output in general.
The first thing to do is talk about why we really have summer and winter. This is the most basic cycle of all.
Everyone has heard in school that the Earth’s axis tilts relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. Everyone is told that this causes the seasons. However, they are frequently wrongly taught that the reason it is colder in winter vs. warmer in summer is because those parts of the Earth are father or closer to the sun because of the tilt.
That is not really the issue.
The issue is more one of geometry. In specific, it is an issue of flux and the nature of flux in a geometric sense.
Flux in a formal definition is an area, described by a vector perpendicular to that area, dotted (as in dot product) with a field going through that area. In general, it is calculated by integrating the dot product of the field with a differential area element.
Think AB cos(theta).
That is there for those who want to look this up in more detail. In more basic terms, imagine I have a nice flow of air or something flowing in nice smooth straight lines, say it is coming in through a window.
Now say I want to “catch” that air with a piece of paper.
So if I hold the edge of the paper toward the window, I get very little resistance. If on the other hand, I hold the paper parallel to the window, it catches all the breeze blown on it. If I hold the paper at 45 degrees relative to the plane of the window, I catch half as much air as I did before when I had it parallel at 0 degrees.
That is the intuitive idea behind flux.
So let’s look at the northern hemisphere and the sun. The tilt of the Earth does not change as it goes around the sun. Even though the sun is radiating in all directions, like a sphere, the Earth is far enough away, and small enough compared to the sun, that the sun’s rays are essentially coming in straight and parallel to each other. That is just like the breeze coming in through the window.
However, the Earth is not flat.
When it is summer in the north, The northern hemisphere is pointed more at the sun. It is exactly like holding the paper more parallel to the window. In winter, the North is bent away from the sun because the Earth is round and the tilt of the Earth now causes the North to tilt away as well. The opposite is true for the South of course.
In other words in summer, the flux is bigger and in winter, the flux is smaller.
OK so that is one cycle. PLease note that all of that tremendous change from winter to summer is accomplished NOT by changing the output of the sun, but simply from geometry.
Now what about orbital variations? That is for the next post…
45 | Killgore Trout Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:39:58pm |
I’m going to try this again later tonight…
How To Make Hand-Pulled Noodles: Part 1 of 2, Kneading
Youtube Video
How To Make Hand-Pulled Noodles: Part 2 of 2, Pulling
Youtube Video
I think this guy gives enough info that I can make it happen.
46 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:44:04pm |
re: #18 Barrett Brown
Charles, you mentioned you read my book; you may recall the part where the fellow with one of those creationist outfits points out that, in an episode of the Munsters, some boat picks Herman out of the water and the crew mistakes him for “the missing link.”
When I first saw your name mentioned in LGF a week or so ago, I looked you up and came across some details of “Flock of Dodos” which sounds hilarious but, of course, is also about a rather disturbing phenomenon. I look forward to reading it.
47 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:54:24pm |
re: #44 ludwigvanquixote
This is a very long and detailed discussion…
One of the things that I like about physics is that it lends itself to elegant mathematical descriptions of observable phenomena. I was reminded of this the other day when I forced myself to sit through the excruciatingly dull 1997 debate about evolution with William Buckley quorum pars magna fuit and other assorted sophists. One of them seemed to be saying that he didn’t agree with neo-Darwinism as it lacked a “dynamical theory”, by which I think he meant that as long as there’s nothing in biology resembling Maxwell’s equations or Einstein’s field equations or even the Dirac equation, he doesn’t find it worthy of his consideration.
48 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:55:51pm |
re: #30 HoosierHoops
To continue…
It is also true that the output you will receive from the sun goes down as the inverse square of the distance.
It is easy to see why this must be so, because the area of a sphere goes as the square of it’s radius and energy is conserved.
In other words, all the out put of the sun is all the out put of the sun. If you make a big sphere around the sun, it would enclose all the output no matter how big the sphere is, however, the bigger the sphere, the more that energy must be spread out over the larger area of that sphere.
But that is a technical digression. Most people get the idea that the closer you are to a fire, the warmer it is.
Now it turns out that there are a number of orbital wobbles that the Earth has and orbit of the Earth is not a perfect circle. This has two effects. One it can cause a period where the Earth has regions that are in general more pointed towards the sun or less (i.e. flux increases or decreases over a hemisphere) and two, there are periods where the Earth gets wobbled a little further or closer out.
These cycles are caused by the fact that the Earth and the sun are not the only bodies in the solar system and some other quirks of the mechanics of spinning bodies.
IN short there are periods where these things add up to cause a general cooling (or ice age) and then there are periods where these effects add up to cause a general warming.
This is one of the primary drivers of climate changes in the past. Please take my word for it, that we are pretty good at calculating this - just like we are pretty good at calculating eclipses. We are actually, as far as orbital variations are concerned in a cool period. Yet we are warming…
However, the situation is complicated because of feedbacks.
The effects from the orbital variations are actually quite small, however, if you start a cycle where more ice melted than last year means less light is reflected, means more ice melts, you can cause a dramatic shift in climate. This is one of many mechanisms that are interlocked in climate in general.
One of the biggest difficulties in explaining climate cycles historically is keeping the different effects distinct in peoples minds so that they can they see how they interact and reinforce each other.
The very short form of how to tell this is not one of these cycles is that
1. those cycles take a long long time, hundreds of years to even thousands of years to do their thing, while the present and very dramatic warming has occurred in just a century - with most of it in the last 50 years.
2. If this were a solar related cycle, the Earth would be warming or cooling from the outside in. Satellite measurements show the opposite, we are warming from the ground up, where we are dumping all the CO2.
49 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 4:58:30pm |
re: #18 Barrett Brown
The thing about references to evolution in popular culture is that creationists have a tendency to see them as being thrown in intentionally as part of a concerted and conscious effort to promote godless materialism. Charles, you mentioned you read my book; you may recall the part where the fellow with one of those creationist outfits points out that, in an episode of the Munsters, some boat picks Herman out of the water and the crew mistakes him for “the missing link.”
As amusing at that is, it’s a huge problem. So many firmly religious Americans see an assault on their most fundamental beliefs from every corner. This, as you’ve experienced for yourself, makes them rather paranoid.
Another good example: the first piece I wrote on R.S. McCain concerned a blog post on teen pregnancy, specifically a study published in the journal Reproductive Health that showed higher rates of teen pregnancy among the religious. McCain was certain that this whole thing had been coordinated as means to attack religion. It does not occur to him or to others like him that scientists and sitcom writers alike very well just be going about their business, as opposed to intentionally trying to strike a blow against the religious. Of course, this is not to say that TV writers, for instance, do not sometimes throw their opinions into their output in a ham-fisted and irritating manner - they often do, and of course a disproportionate number of them are generally secular. But sometimes a Herman Munster is just a Herman Munster.
Also, the cartoonist fellow is all upset because I posted my parody version of his anti-Johnson cartoon, and is commanding me to take it down over at True/Slant, where he’s taken to posting confused comments; I think we’ll see a few more scattered lulz from the fellow over the next few days.
For those who were taught to believe as a matter of religious faith that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, it would only be natural for them to be extremely upset upon being presented with incontrovertible scientific findings to the contrary.
Someone who had been raised a YEC would likely go through phases of denial and of desperately looking for some way to rationalize the contradiction.
Add a measure of ridicule and gloating by those debunking the religious myths and it is easy to understand a defensive or even a nasty response.
50 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:01:10pm |
re: #48 ludwigvanquixote
To continue…
It is also true that the output you will receive from the sun goes down as the inverse square of the distance.
It is easy to see why this must be so, because the area of a sphere goes as the square of it’s radius and energy is conserved.
In other words, all the out put of the sun is all the out put of the sun. If you make a big sphere around the sun, it would enclose all the output no matter how big the sphere is, however, the bigger the sphere, the more that energy must be spread out over the larger area of that sphere.
But that is a technical digression. Most people get the idea that the closer you are to a fire, the warmer it is.
Now it turns out that there are a number of orbital wobbles that the Earth has and orbit of the Earth is not a perfect circle. This has two effects. One it can cause a period where the Earth has regions that are in general more pointed towards the sun or less (i.e. flux increases or decreases over a hemisphere) and two, there are periods where the Earth gets wobbled a little further or closer out.
These cycles are caused by the fact that the Earth and the sun are not the only bodies in the solar system and some other quirks of the mechanics of spinning bodies.
IN short there are periods where these things add up to cause a general cooling (or ice age) and then there are periods where these effects add up to cause a general warming.
This is one of the primary drivers of climate changes in the past. Please take my word for it, that we are pretty good at calculating this - just like we are pretty good at calculating eclipses. We are actually, as far as orbital variations are concerned in a cool period. Yet we are warming…
However, the situation is complicated because of feedbacks.
The effects from the orbital variations are actually quite small, however, if you start a cycle where more ice melted than last year means less light is reflected, means more ice melts, you can cause a dramatic shift in climate. This is one of many mechanisms that are interlocked in climate in general.
One of the biggest difficulties in explaining climate cycles historically is keeping the different effects distinct in peoples minds so that they can they see how they interact and reinforce each other.
The very short form of how to tell this is not one of these cycles is that
1. those cycles take a long long time, hundreds of years to even thousands of years to do their thing, while the present and very dramatic warming has occurred in just a century - with most of it in the last 50 years.
2. If this were a solar related cycle, the Earth would be warming or cooling from the outside in. Satellite measurements show the opposite, we are warming from the ground up, where we are dumping all the CO2.
What about the sunspots? They keep talking about the measurably decreased sunspot activity.
51 | goddamnedfrank Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:04:35pm |
re: #50 Spare O’Lake
What about the sunspots? They keep talking about the measurably decreased sunspot activity.
Here ya’ go:
news.nationalgeographic.com>news.nationalgeographic.com>Foukal is lead author of a review paper on sunspot intensity appearing in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature.He says that most climate models—including ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—already incorporate the effects of the sun’s waxing and waning power on Earth’s weather (related images: our stormy star).
But, Foukal said, “this paper says that that particular mechanism [sunspots], which is most intuitive, is probably not having an impact.”
Sunspot Impact Simply Too Small
Sunspots are magnetic disturbances that appear as cooler, dark patches on the sun’s surface. The number of spots cycles over time, reaching a peak every 11 years.
The spots’ impact on the sun’s total energy output is easy to see.
“As it turns out, most of the sun’s power output is in the visible range—what we see as brightness,” said Henk Spruit, study co-author from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany.
52 | Racer X Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:11:26pm |
re: #48 ludwigvanquixote
Excellent summary.
And if I might add, on a related note: because the earth has seasons we also have change. Change facilitates evolution.
53 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:11:55pm |
re: #50 Spare O’Lake
What about the sunspots? They keep talking about the measurably decreased sunspot activity.
This is a great question.
The they who talks about it the most are the non-scientific political shills.
They would like you to believe that by creating a tempest in a teapot, that somehow the entire set of other observed facts of AGW magically go away. Alas, many are gullible enough to fall for it.
It is true that there is a small - read very small - variation in the sun’s irradiance because of the lack of sunspots. It is true that there is a large and heated debate in the community over if this has a small effect on the overall models.
However, there are four things to note:
1. Solar cycles are 11 years long. The sun was behaving perfectly normally for the last century while we were warming through all the past 11 year solar cycles.
2. Even in the most extreme cases of what this effect could be, it does not account for the all the warming we see.
3. If it were the sun causing the warming from increased output, we would see the atmosphere warming from the top down - because the sun is supposedly outputting more to heat us… We see the exact opposite. This means that rather than more heat coming in from the top, more heat is being trapped at the bottom. This is the smoking gun, game over argument.
4. The sun is currently outputting less… We are still warming. What happens in the next cycle when it gets back to normal and all the things we did to the atmosphere to make us warm better are still in play - or in fact, worse?
55 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:15:20pm |
re: #51 goddamnedfrank
Interesting. Here is an extract from the same article which you omitted, and which seems to say that solar effects on climate ARE observed and are not accounted for by sunspots alone, but they then point to several other solar factors which may well turn out to be significant.
“There are numerous studies that find a correlation [between solar variation and Earth climate],” said Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Lindau, Germany.
“These authors have looked at the simplest mechanism, and they find that this mechanism does not produce the same level of change that has been observed,” he continued.
“This could be suggesting that there are other mechanisms acting for the way that the sun influences climate.”
Solar ultraviolet (UV) rays are one possibility, though that theory creates its own challenges.
“UV is only a small fraction of total solar output, so you’d need a strong amplification mechanism in the Earth’s atmosphere,” study co-author Spruit said.
Magnetized plasma flares known as solar wind could also impact Earth’s climate. Solar wind influences galactic rays and may in turn affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover.
Such complex interactions are poorly understood but could be crucial to unlocking Earth’s climatic puzzle.
Comments?
56 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:17:48pm |
re: #53 ludwigvanquixote
Thank you. See link to my #55 and please comment.
57 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:18:07pm |
re: #53 ludwigvanquixote
They would like you to believe that by creating a tempest in a teapot, that somehow the entire set of other observed facts of AGW magically go away. Alas, many are gullible enough to fall for it.
Exactly. If your own views don’t accord with science, or you just don’t understand the science, pick on something irrelevant and then argue about it and nothing else ad nauseam until your opponents give up. Before you can “teach the controversy” when there really isn’t one to be found, you have to create one.
58 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:18:51pm |
re: #52 Racer X
[…] because the earth has seasons we also have change. Change facilitates evolution.
You forgot Hope.
59 | Racer X Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:19:22pm |
Bobbitt Family Update
In a recent news broadcast, it was announced that Lorena Bobbitt’s sister Louella was arrested for an alleged attempt to perform the same act on her husband as her famous sister had done several years ago.
Sources reveal the sister was not as accurate as Lorena. She allegedly missed the target and stabbed her husband in the upper thigh causing severe muscle and tendon damage. The husband is reported to be in serious, but stable condition, and Louella has been charged with …
?
?
?
?
?
A Misdewiener!
60 | Boyo Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:20:42pm |
re: #58 Bagua
You forgot Hope.
actually hope has nothing to do with …uhhhp…I see what you did there ;)
61 | albusteve Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:21:15pm |
re: #59 Racer X
yup, slow thread…I was gonna post a race car pic, but your joke more appropriate
62 | Randall Gross Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:24:01pm |
arggg a long time ago I campaigned for this guy:
Rep. Don Young Silent About Documents Linking him to corruption probe
63 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:24:43pm |
re: #57 John Neverbend
See my #55. Is this irrelevant? I am not a scientist but when I read stuff like this and see such comments from learned sources my antennae do go up.
64 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:25:31pm |
re: #53 ludwigvanquixote
[…]
2. Even in the most extreme cases of what this effect could be, it does not account for the all the warming we see.
[…]
How would this range, from most minor to most extreme hypothesis, translate into a scale of tenths of degrees C?
65 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:26:40pm |
re: #63 Spare O’Lake
See my #55. Is this irrelevant? I am not a scientist but when I read stuff like this and see such comments from learned sources my antennae do go up.
You have antenna also? I thought that mutation was a hoax.
66 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:32:22pm |
re: #63 Spare O’Lake
See my #55. Is this irrelevant? I am not a scientist but when I read stuff like this and see such comments from learned sources my antennae do go up.
I dont’ know. Ludwig’s comment on “non-scientific political shills” reminded me of the creationist-style argument against science which is to make irrelevant objections with the intention of stalling the scientific debate. It’s this that I was attacking.
67 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:36:22pm |
re: #56 Spare O’Lake
Thank you. See link to my #55 and please comment.
The best comment I can give is one of magnitude and order.
Suppose I want to estimate the mass of an old truck from the days when they were made out of steel. Let’s say the actual mass is two tons.
To first order, I’ll call the truck a rectangle and imagine that it is made out of steel.
If I do that, I’ll get an estimate for the mass of the truck that is too large, say my two ton truck is now estimated to be four tons.
However, that estimate can make us pretty certain we are talking about something that weighs tons. There is no correction that will suddenly make it only weigh pounds.
But I want to be more accurate - and bear with me, suppose I don’t have a scale handy to just measure it directly.
But to second order there are big hollow places in the cab and in the truck in general. It is not a solid brick of steel.
Say I take that into account, now I am much closer to the two tons. Say I get 2.1 tons.
At this point there is no way at all, it will ever be something that is only say 100 pounds.
Now say I am a real stickler and I take into account that glass and the seats are not made of steel. This is going to third order. But this point, I’ve done a lot of measurements on this truck and I know for sure when I get a number close to two tons, it really is close to two tons in actual mass.
Notice that as I keep going up in order, the corrections get smaller and smaller.
The point of this is we have already looked at what the biggest effects are and ruled out the other things that could cause effects as big as we are seeing.
The effects of the solar variations are second and third order effects.
The denier types would falsely like you to believe that they are first order effects.
Now to make the most accurate predictions of exactly when and exactly how bad things will get with AGW we need to take third and even fourth order things into account. There is great debate raging on what those things are and how big of a small effect they will have.
Do not be fooled. There is no question that we are causing the warming or where it ends up eventually if we do not change. There is no question at all that even in the best case we are looking at some very bad consequences this century. Very bad means sea level rise, loss of fresh water, change in growing patterns, mass extinctions, ocean anoxia etc…
Those are things in the first and second order.
Third order is will sunspots delay that by a decade or so.
68 | Irenicum Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:36:25pm |
re: #21 ludwigvanquixote
So you might have to split like light refracted?
69 | Racer X Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:37:06pm |
70 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:38:18pm |
re: #68 Irenicum
So you might have to split like light refracted?
Speaking of which…
I’ll see you all on the flip side…
I took a lot longer here tonight than I should have. Be well all!
72 | A Man for all Seasons Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:39:18pm |
re: #70 ludwigvanquixote
Speaking of which…
I’ll see you all on the flip side…
I took a lot longer here tonight than I should have. Be well all!
Thanks for your time.. Be well
74 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:39:47pm |
re: #70 ludwigvanquixote
Speaking of which…
I’ll see you all on the flip side…
I took a lot longer here tonight than I should have. Be well all!
Shavua tov.
75 | goddamnedfrank Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:40:37pm |
re: #55 Spare O’Lake
Interesting. Here is an extract from the same article which you omitted, and which seems to say that solar effects on climate ARE observed and are not accounted for by sunspots alone, but they then point to several other solar factors which may well turn out to be significant.
Comments?
Yes, it seems to me that climatologists and other research scientists tend to act like scientists and always try to keep an open mind while acknowledging any theoretical limitations of current research. However, since there is no evidence that we are currently in a period of increased UV spectrum solar output, or remarkable solar flare activity, I’d say that these particular researchers are obviously referring to studies that relate to historical, or even geologic timescales and not any recent, undocumented change in solar output.
76 | albusteve Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:42:29pm |
re: #69 Racer X
she’s pretty good…but I’m more impressed with finger pickin…maybe she play that way too…but this is a rhythm shuffle
77 | swamprat Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:44:30pm |
re: #53 ludwigvanquixote
Thank you for having the “ask ludwigvanquixote question hour”;
Please Ludwig, why will, (or are) the nitrogen uptake cycles be disrupted during this time of global warming compared to previous global warming periods.
This question relates to previous videos refuting the claim that global warming will increase crop yields and growing seasons. Further, if the question itself is inherently flawed because of a (granted) lack of understanding of the questioner; correct the question and respond.
Thanks. I know you are busy. I will check back.
78 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:45:01pm |
re: #64 Bagua
How would this range, from most minor to most extreme hypothesis, translate into a scale of tenths of degrees C?
At most we are talking .01 to .1 of a degree over an 11 year cycle. The next cycle of course could make up for that easily by being a warmer solar cycle.
The anthropogenic effects have been around longer. They will persist into the next solar cycle. As far as the sunspot stuff goes, in some sense it averages out.
79 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:46:36pm |
re: #77 swamprat
Thank you for having the “ask ludwigvanquixote question hour”;
Please Ludwig, why will, (or are) the nitrogen uptake cycles be disrupted during this time of global warming compared to previous global warming periods.
This question relates to previous videos refuting the claim that global warming will increase crop yields and growing seasons. Further, if the question itself is inherently flawed because of a (granted) lack of understanding of the questioner; correct the question and respond.
Thanks. I know you are busy. I will check back.
That’s a great discussion. I would love to get into it, but there is not a short answer.
I’ll have to save this for tomorrow or perhaps really late tonight. I’ve been a bad boy as it is posting here as long as I have.
80 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:47:25pm |
re: #78 ludwigvanquixote
Thanks, that was what I gathered from your #67.
81 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:49:00pm |
re: #67 ludwigvanquixote
The best comment I can give is one of magnitude and order.
…
The point of this is we have already looked at what the biggest effects are and ruled out the other things that could cause effects as big as we are seeing.The effects of the solar variations are second and third order effects.
The denier types would falsely like you to believe that they are first order effects.
…
Third order is will sunspots delay that by a decade or so.
Sorry, you lost me. The learned scientists from the Max Plank Institute said that sunspot variations do not account for all the solar effects on climate, and they suggest that UV and Solar Wind might do so.
Are you saying that UV and Solar Wind changes do not or can not account for a significant portion of our climate changes?
82 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:49:52pm |
84 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:52:07pm |
re: #82 ludwigvanquixote
Thanks, and as always, your comments on this are appreciated.
You’re welcome, but I’m very much a beginner when it comes to this particular discussion.
85 | Charles Johnson Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:52:48pm |
86 | Racer X Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:53:05pm |
re: #76 albusteve
she’s pretty good…but I’m more impressed with finger pickin…maybe she play that way too…but this is a rhythm shuffle
87 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:54:39pm |
re: #81 Spare O’Lake
The learned scientists from the Max Plank Institute said that sunspot variations do not account for all the solar effects on climate, and they suggest that UV and Solar Wind might do so.
No the MSM article you quoted says they say that. I am certain that the actual papers will have a number of caveats, like, solar activity might account for a certain very specific effect, not the over all warming, or it might have accounted for a very specific effect in the past, but not now etc…
Are you saying that UV and Solar Wind changes do not or can not account for a significant portion of our climate changes?
Yes, and I had thought that I made a very very clear set of arguments for why.
Don’t make this into an appeal to authority. Use your head. If the sun were causing the warming through greater output (especially since the output is currently slightly less), why does the atmosphere heat from the bottom up and not the top down?
If I cook something from the outside, the outside heats up first right?
88 | goddamnedfrank Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:55:09pm |
re: #81 Spare O’Lake
Are you saying that UV and Solar Wind changes do not or can not account for a significant portion of our climate changes?
No, just that less documented evidence exists for such changes occurring presently than exists in support of the existence of the tooth fairy. The concept that such inputs are poorly understood and may have driven climate change on historic timescales is what those scientists were referring to. There is still no evidence for a delta in the inputs themselves.
89 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:55:18pm |
re: #84 John Neverbend
You’re welcome, but I’m very much a beginner when it comes to this particular discussion.
True, but you have the background to look into it and contribute a lot.
90 | Killgore Trout Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:55:55pm |
re: #85 Charles
Must be the calm before Obama’s pig flu troops declare open war on us!
91 | Irenicum Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:56:10pm |
re: #89 ludwigvanquixote
I just want to say how impressed I am at the discussion tonight. Bravo!
92 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:56:19pm |
93 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:57:25pm |
94 | Irenicum Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:57:28pm |
re: #90 Killgore Trout
I posted the story about him declaring the national emergency on my FB page saying exactly the same thing. Be prepared for the martial law meme by Monday.
95 | albusteve Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:58:11pm |
my green contribution of the day…
I went up to Santa Fe (45mi) on our new Rail Runner commuter train…it’s been on line for about a year and it is a sensation…people just love the thing..from the south it starts in Belen, about 30-40 miles south of ABQ, comes up through ABQ making several stops, then continues on up to the northern terminus at the old and refurbished rail yard in Santa Fe…when you disembark at the rail yard, there are vendors, and open markets, cantinas and coffee houses…pretty cool…from there you can take a free shuttle to the Plaza or anywhere else to get to your job…the local commuters love it and the tourists go nuts because of the simplicity and downright fun…5 bucks, weekend fare from Albuquerque to Santa Fe round trip…car traffic has been considerably lessened up and down the valley…we be cool
96 | Ojoe Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:58:55pm |
97 | albusteve Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:59:07pm |
98 | Racer X Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:59:14pm |
99 | Killgore Trout Sat, Oct 24, 2009 5:59:16pm |
re: #94 Irenicum
Yup, it’s starting already. Wingnuts are just as predictable as the LLL was last year.
100 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:00:31pm |
re: #91 Irenicum
I just want to say how impressed I am at the discussion tonight. Bravo!
Thank you. It is very easy to have the discussion if someone asks a good question and honestly want the answers.
It is hard when they make a false claim and no matter how much evidence you point at them they refuse to look at it or consider it.
I also confess to going through periods where I just can’t take it, and I do, I apologize get snarky. I am working on that. It just can take a long time to type a point out clearly and then to have it simply ignored by the repetition of debunked thing after debunked thing, particularly from those claiming false expertise, gets me pissed.
Like I said. I am working on not getting pissed off.
101 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:01:37pm |
re: #87 ludwigvanquixote
Yes, and I had thought that I made a very very clear set of arguments for why.
Don’t make this into an appeal to authority. Use your head. If the sun were causing the warming through greater output (especially since the output is currently slightly less), why does the atmosphere heat from the bottom up and not the top down?
If I cook something from the outside, the outside heats up first right?
Not in the microwave.
BTW, please don’t get defensive or insulting, I am trying to understand. You may well be right, it’s just that the scientists were quoted as saying that, not me.
102 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:02:36pm |
re: #89 ludwigvanquixote
True, but you have the background to look into it and contribute a lot.
But I regret, I don’t have the time that I really need to develop a deep understanding. A couple of years ago, I was actively working on carbon finance. This gave me a fairly good understanding of the history of the Kyoto Protocol and what lead to its consummation. The assumption was that the underlying theory was sound.
103 | A Man for all Seasons Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:03:06pm |
re: #83 Killgore Trout
Hmmm…it’s quiet in here tonight.
I’m watching Milk on HBO
Having lived through this after College…I may have a lot to say…
There was a time in Napa Valley that if you were a City gay boy and hung out at our Bars..You would get your ass kicked…We were proud of our Cowboy hats in farm country…
But around 1976 there was a change…Maybe it is more important to have human rights…There was a seachange for human rights…
Now..Can we have any more riots here?
I am proud that Californians stood up for personal rights…
/Did I pick a fight yet? Wink?
104 | albusteve Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:03:12pm |
re: #99 Killgore Trout
Yup, it’s starting already. Wingnuts are just as predictable as the LLL was last year.
who cares?…were all gonna die…flu, starvation in the camps, drowning etc
106 | John Neverbend Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:03:58pm |
re: #100 ludwigvanquixote
Thank you. It is very easy to have the discussion if someone asks a good question and honestly want the answers.
It is hard when they make a false claim and no matter how much evidence you point at them they refuse to look at it or consider it.
This is one of the reasons for Richard Dawkins’ usually refusing to debate with creationists. And yet, they still don’t get it.
107 | Gus Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:05:02pm |
re: #99 Killgore Trout
Yup, it’s starting already. Wingnuts are just as predictable as the LLL was last year.
It’s coming. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia already got a head start in August:
He also spoke of a “socialistic elite” – Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – who might use a pandemic disease or natural disaster as an excuse to declare martial law.
“They’re trying to develop an environment where they can take over,” he said. “We’ve seen that historically.”
Before I forget, he’s a Republican.
Lots of stuff brewing in the news which includes the usual suspects such as World Nut Daily.
109 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:05:20pm |
re: #101 Spare O’Lake
Not in the microwave.
BTW, please don’t get defensive or insulting, I am trying to understand. You may well be right, it’s just that the scientists were quoted as saying that, not me.
Ohh I am not getting defensive, and I meant no insult.
Actually even stuff in the microwave heats up from the outside in.
The issue though, that might make you think otherwise, is that the microwave does not have a uniform field so the heating is not even, and that the whole point of a microwave is that microwaves heat water (and other organic molecules) in much the same way that IR heats CO2.
So if I have a plastic container, the microwave pass through it pretty well, while they go on and do a number on your food - from the outside in.
110 | Cato the Elder Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:05:43pm |
I remember Homer when he was a comic strip. The teevee show came much later.
111 | SanFranciscoZionist Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:06:07pm |
re: #94 Irenicum
I posted the story about him declaring the national emergency on my FB page saying exactly the same thing. Be prepared for the martial law meme by Monday.
Why would we declare martial law over a flu outbreak with only a thousand dead?
//was that my outside, rational voice, that doesn’t understand the eeevil that is Barack Obama?
113 | goddamnedfrank Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:14:25pm |
re: #109 ludwigvanquixote
Actually even stuff in the microwave heats up from the outside in.
The issue though, that might make you think otherwise, is that the microwave does not have a uniform field so the heating is not even, and that the whole point of a microwave is that microwaves heat water (and other organic molecules) in much the same way that IR heats CO2.
So if I have a plastic container, the microwave pass through it pretty well, while they go on and do a number on your food - from the outside in.
Exactly. Intuitively tested by partially cooking anything in a microwave and finding a colder center.
114 | Irenicum Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:14:41pm |
re: #111 SanFranciscoZionist
The meme is not my meme, mind you, it’s the wingnut meme.
115 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:15:19pm |
re: #111 SanFranciscoZionist
Why would we declare martial law over a flu outbreak with only a thousand dead?
[…]
And considering the tens of thousands who die annually from other flu virus variants.
116 | bratwurst Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:18:57pm |
re: #110 Cato the Elder
I remember Homer when he was a comic strip. The teevee show came much later.
Except he debuted on TV:
117 | Irenicum Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:20:16pm |
re: #116 bratwurst
Actually I think he may have predated Tracy Ullman’s show. The strip may ahve appeared in the Village Voice. I remember Matt Groening having a strip there.
118 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:20:30pm |
From the Max Planck 2004 Press Release:
The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. “Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,” says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
Hope this helps. It helped me.
119 | bratwurst Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:21:14pm |
re: #117 Irenicum
Actually I think he may have predated Tracy Ullman’s show. The strip may ahve appeared in the Village Voice. I remember Matt Groening having a strip there.
He did, but it was this strip which had nothing to do with any of the Simpsons:
120 | Irenicum Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:22:09pm |
re: #119 bratwurst
huh, shoulda read the wiki entry! Thanks! I thought maybe he was in Life in Hell.
121 | goddamnedfrank Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:22:21pm |
Amend last post to assume items of similar composition. The reason that the sun isn’t like a microwave is that the sun is a continuous light source, emitting over a wide spectrum like a tungsten filament bulb, while a microwave emitter is non-continuous, and emits in select frequency specific spikes. There is no evidence that the sun is currently emitting UV spectrum spikes, and no currently understood mechanism for such a theoretical frequency spike to have a magnified impact on climate.
122 | bratwurst Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:25:03pm |
re: #120 Irenicum
huh, shoulda read the wiki entry! Thanks! I thought maybe he was in Life in Hell.
There were certain similarities between the two creations of course…Bart Simpsons actually hd a few cameos in the strip! But the fact is that Homer appeared nowhere before the Tracy Ullman Show.
123 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:25:05pm |
re: #118 Spare O’Lake
From the Max Planck 2004 Press Release:
[Link: www.mpg.de…]
Hope this helps. It helped me.
Good on you, and there you have it.
This is a place to talk about biased and false reporting.
The scientists at Max Plank say that solar variation is an effect, one effect that needs to be taken into account. However, they are clear that the main effect of climate change is GHG emissions.
If on the other hand, you read the MSM article only, you would infer the exact opposite.
You see this again and again with the denier set and teh shills who write from them. It is the egregious practice of taking things a legitimate scientist says completely out of context in the hopes of claiming he or she said the exact opposite. It is deeply dishonest and rotten to its core.
I see it over and over again.
124 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:27:25pm |
In fact, to quote further from the press release that Sparolake brought, and good job…
These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.
Which is exactly what I told you all before.
125 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:27:33pm |
re: #109 ludwigvanquixote
Ohh I am not getting defensive, and I meant no insult.
Actually even stuff in the microwave heats up from the outside in.
The issue though, that might make you think otherwise, is that the microwave does not have a uniform field so the heating is not even, and that the whole point of a microwave is that microwaves heat water (and other organic molecules) in much the same way that IR heats CO2.
So if I have a plastic container, the microwave pass through it pretty well, while they go on and do a number on your food - from the outside in.
Doesn’t most of the radiation pass through the atmosphere without being absorbed and hit the surface of the earth or the ocean? If so, wouldn’t the surface heat up first and then the atmosphere would heat up from the surface up?
126 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:29:01pm |
re: #125 Spare O’Lake
Doesn’t most of the radiation pass through the atmosphere without being absorbed and hit the surface of the earth or the ocean? If so, wouldn’t the surface heat up first and then the atmosphere would heat up from the surface up?
Yes, except that the CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere also catch that radiation. They catch it on the way down and on the way back up. That both heats those gasses up and it causes them to re-radiate it back down again, giving the Earth a second chance to catch it and warm up.
127 | Cato the Elder Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:34:24pm |
re: #116 bratwurst
Except he debuted on TV:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]
Ah. The tricks of memory. I remember the “Life Is Hell” comics: there was a guy in a fez and there were at least two rabbits, one of whom was handicapped (= only one ear). I thought I remembered Simpsonesque characters from that era…
[pounding head]
Nope, nothing clearer. After 2,240 or so years, things get fuzzy.
128 | metrolibertarian Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:36:27pm |
re: #127 Cato the Elder
Ah. The tricks of memory. I remember the “Life Is Hell” comics: there was a guy in a fez and there were at least two rabbits, one of whom was handicapped (= only one ear). I thought I remembered Simpsonesque characters from that era…
[pounding head]
Nope, nothing clearer. After 2,240 or so years, things get fuzzy.
The Rabbit with only one ear was actually the main character of the Life Is Hell comics, and wasn’t handicapped.
129 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:38:46pm |
Here’s another mindfuck, from the same Max Planck press release:
These data show clearly that the Sun is in a state of unusually high activity, for about the last 60 years. The time interval for which this statement can be made has been tripled by these new investigations, for now the reconstructed sunspot numbers extend back to 850 AD. Another period of enhanced solar activity, but with substantially fewer sunspots than now, occurred in the Middle Ages from 1100 to 1250. At that time, a warm period reigned over the Earth, as the Vikings established flourishing settlements in Greenland.
Pardon me while I go get the tylenol.
130 | bratwurst Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:39:02pm |
re: #127 Cato the Elder
Ah. The tricks of memory. I remember the “Life Is Hell” comics: there was a guy in a fez and there were at least two rabbits, one of whom was handicapped (= only one ear). I thought I remembered Simpsonesque characters from that era…
[pounding head]
Nope, nothing clearer. After 2,240 or so years, things get fuzzy.
I would be THRILLED to trade a solid knowledge of German articles for my knowledge of Matt Groening’s career any day of the week!
131 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:40:19pm |
re: #125 Spare O’Lake
Doesn’t most of the radiation pass through the atmosphere without being absorbed and hit the surface of the earth or the ocean? If so, wouldn’t the surface heat up first and then the atmosphere would heat up from the surface up?
Sorry, I can’t resist.
On the microwave part, they do penetrate and heat from within, which is why they work better than a “from the outside source” like infrared. However, depending on the power and the material being heated, they will not penetrate all the way through, but they do have a head start on traditional types of radiant heat.
As to heat from the sun, it is absorbed by the atmosphere to some degree depending on conditions, but also the ground of course. However much of the incoming radiation is at higher frequencies than “low temperature” infrared and that passes through more easily than lower frequencies. However when it hits something and heats it up, that object will re radiate at lower frequencies, and it is those lower frequencies that are preferentially absorbed by gases like CO2, or methane, which is why heat tends to be captured instead of simply radiating back into space the way it came.
132 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:50:44pm |
133 | The Sanity Inspector Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:56:36pm |
re: #124 ludwigvanquixote
In fact, to quote further from the press release that Sparolake brought, and good job…
Which is exactly what I told you all before.
[Link: www.mpg.de…]
But-but-but…that’s not what they say on Neal Boortz’s site, at all!
//
134 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:59:39pm |
re: #131 Naso Tang
Sorry, I can’t resist.
On the microwave part, they do penetrate and heat from within, which is why they work better than a “from the outside source” like infrared. However, depending on the power and the material being heated, they will not penetrate all the way through, but they do have a head start on traditional types of radiant heat.
[…]
And of course that the microwave penetrates containers such as plastic efficiently while it excites the fluids withing the container from the outside in. Thus the cooking effect is still similar to a conventional oven radiant source, outside in, but the effect of the container is remarkably different.
135 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:00:02pm |
re: #132 LudwigVanQuixote
Sunspots and sunspot cycles and direct measurements from the sun have been researched to enormous extent, and nothing has been found that can explain temperature/weather changes of the magnitudes described in AGW scenarios.
There has been speculation that the solar wind (particles, not radiation) can have an indirect effect on the atmosphere and in extreme cases of large solar flares there are measurable effects. However they are short lived and no mechanism relating to long term changes has been found, or even theorized beyond simple speculation.
136 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:02:44pm |
re: #132 LudwigVanQuixote
Take that with a grain of salt. There was a medieval warm period in parts of Europe. It was not global.[Link: www.mpg.de…]
“At that time, a warm period reigned over the Earth” - MP Press Release
I gotta tell ya, from what you are telling me these Max Planckers were pretty sloppy with their press release. If it was local and not global, why didn’t they say so instead of saying “reigned over the earth”?
137 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:04:12pm |
re: #134 Bagua
And of course that the microwave penetrates containers such as plastic efficiently while it excites the fluids withing the container from the outside in. Thus the cooking effect is still similar to a conventional oven radiant source, outside in, but the effect of the container is remarkably different.
No. A thin piece of food will be fully penetrated by microwaves and heated more or less uniformly from within at all points. A thicker piece will not be fully penetrated, but will start heating closer to the center than an infrared heated one would.
The container role in this discussion is a red herring.
138 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:09:12pm |
India and China are apparently refusing to agree to ANY caps, not even on a delayed basis.
Dealbreaker, methinks.
139 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:09:18pm |
re: #137 Naso Tang
[…]
The container role in this discussion is a red herring.
Why, isn’t the key advantage to the microwave oven the fact that it penetrates cooking containers but not fluids?
140 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:09:32pm |
re: #136 Spare O’Lake
“At that time, a warm period reigned over the Earth” - MP Press Release
I gotta tell ya, from what you are telling me these Max Planckers were pretty sloppy with their press release. If it was local and not global, why didn’t they say so instead of saying “reigned over the earth”?
That is a good question. I would take issue with that particular phrase.
The best proxy data sets for the past 1000 years or so are all collected here in this brief by the National Academy of sciences.
Look at page two. It was indeed a bit warmer 100 years ago. I suppose calling that a warm period in relative terms is not a misnomer, but it was in fact cooler than today, and rapidly overtaken by the present GHG forcings.
141 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:10:42pm |
re: #138 Spare O’Lake
India and China are apparently refusing to agree to ANY caps, not even on a delayed basis.
Dealbreaker, methinks.
Which is where we impose tariffs.
142 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:14:16pm |
re: #141 LudwigVanQuixote
Which is where we impose tariffs.
Which we should do for other reasons as well.
143 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:18:33pm |
144 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:18:39pm |
re: #139 Bagua
Why, isn’t the key advantage to the microwave oven the fact that it penetrates cooking containers but not fluids?
It is an advantage to be sure, and in fact if that were not the case then microwave oven would not function any differently from conventional ones because the microwaves would be absorbed by the container which would heat the contents by contact.
The reason microwave oven work faster is because they do not fully rely on conduction or convection of heat to penetrate.
Reminds me of the best stove we ever had, until the circuits fried and a replacement was too expensive at 2 or 3 thousand.
That was an induction stove top. Creates a very local high frequency magnetic field where the “burner” is. You can turn it on full and put your hand there and feel nothing (but take rings off).
Put a cast iron pan on it and the field causes induced currents within the pan, heating it very rapidly and evenly, even partly up the sides. Fantastic heat control and responsiveness. Better than gas any day.
145 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:25:47pm |
re: #144 Naso Tang
It is an advantage to be sure, and in fact if that were not the case then microwave oven would not function any differently from conventional ones because the microwaves would be absorbed by the container which would heat the contents by contact.
[…].
Right, that is what I was driving at, which is not a Red Herring.
For the application to AGW, the atmosphere is the container. The Sun acts as a radiant source, but in a variety of spectrums. Some find different gasses more or less opaque, thus we would see an heightened response at levels for particular spectrums were the gasses that were less opaque concentrated.
148 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:32:46pm |
re: #140 LudwigVanQuixote
That is a good question. I would take issue with that particular phrase.
The best proxy data sets for the past 1000 years or so are all collected here in this brief by the National Academy of sciences.
PIMF
[Link: dels.nas.edu…]
Look at page two. It was indeed a bit warmer 1000 years ago. I suppose calling that a warm period in relative terms is not a misnomer, but it was in fact cooler than today, and rapidly overtaken by the present GHG forcings.
149 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:33:40pm |
re: #143 Spare O’Lake
re: #142 Bagua
So basically, the developed nations are going to have to take unilateral climate action and collectively impose protectionist barriers against the developing world?
And Obama is going to pull this off?
Good Fucking Luck!
Yeah that’s about right. The situation is pretty grim. The first step to making it less grim is if the average American gets the clue and demands change.
150 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:34:30pm |
re: #145 Bagua
Right, that is what I was driving at, which is not a Red Herring.
For the application to AGW, the atmosphere is the container. The Sun acts as a radiant source, but in a variety of spectrums. Some find different gasses more or less opaque, thus we would see an heightened response at levels for particular spectrums were the gasses that were less opaque concentrated.
The first part was at least a distraction to the argument of the moment. The point is that you can cook something suspended from a string, with no container, via radiant heat or microwaves. The results will be different in time and effect for the reasons mentioned.
The second part is correct, but the bottom line is that essentially all of the spectrum becomes reduced to low level frequencies as soon as absorbed by anything, and it stays at that level, which just coincidentally happens to be what greenhouse gases like.
In fact that is why they are called greenhouse gases.
151 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:37:28pm |
re: #138 Spare O’Lake
India and China are apparently refusing to agree to ANY caps, not even on a delayed basis.
Did anyone expect them to?
152 | goddamnedfrank Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:37:51pm |
re: #144 Naso Tang
That was an induction stove top. Creates a very local high frequency magnetic field where the “burner” is. You can turn it on full and put your hand there and feel nothing (but take rings off).
Put a cast iron pan on it and the field causes induced currents within the pan, heating it very rapidly and evenly, even partly up the sides. Fantastic heat control and responsiveness. Better than gas any day.
Too many pots and pans you can’t use, magnetic interface mean you can’t toss your sautés, can’t flambé without a lighter, can’t roast peppers. Induction stovetops are nice for some people, but gas works better for me.
153 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:39:30pm |
re: #150 Naso Tang
Respectfully you are both over complicating thing.
Either a photon interacts or it does not. If it interacts, for the wavelegnths we are talking about, i.e. much longer than x rays, is determined by the electron structure of the molecules in question.
If the photon does not interact, well, it just keeps going. If it does interact, and gets absorbed, then it heats what it hits.
If I have a ball of material that is good at absorbing a certain frequency, then the outside gets hit first and it absorbs the energy first and it heats first.
There is nothing more to it than that.
In fact the inside of you microwave dinner does not get hit by too many microwaves, because the outside absorbed the energy first. The inside heats by convection and conduction.
154 | swamprat Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:42:44pm |
re: #145 Bagua
Wondering about spectrum shift-either from the source, or caused by pollution;
Place these two graphs side by side
1temps
2Image: Fig%20Hai%206.jpg
155 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:43:05pm |
re: #152 goddamnedfrank
Too many pots and pans you can’t use, magnetic interface mean you can’t toss your sautés, can’t flambé without a lighter, can’t roast peppers. Induction stovetops are nice for some people, but gas works better for me.
Oooh. A secret chef. I can just imagine how often you flambe for effect at home, and peppers do better in the broiler than on a stick over the flame (I’m imagining here).
But I have to ask, why can’t “I” toss my sautes (if I should ever dare to try)?
:)
156 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:43:07pm |
re: #150 Naso Tang
re: #145 Bagua
As to AGW, the mechanism is that CO2 is good at trapping IR. It has a chance to catch some on the way down and then also on teh way back up if it reflected.
Once caught the CO2 heats up and re-radiates. Half of what it re-radiates goes back down. So in essence, it gives the surface anther shot of catching the energy and getting warm itself.
157 | swamprat Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:46:34pm |
re: #154 swamprat
Forgot. Graph 2 is fiberoptic attenuation in plastic fiber. Glass fiber produces a more linear attenuation.
158 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:51:00pm |
re: #153 LudwigVanQuixote
Right, that was what I was trying to say. The inbound effect is similar because the microwave interacts with the fluids more efficiently than the dry plastic or glass, just like the photons pass through the air, but heat the ground. So substitute the fluid for ground
Add to this the CO2 being more opaque to photons and we have more warming were it is concentrated inbound, as well as the effect of it reacting with the IR radiation out bound. The outbound IR is similar to the effect of the microwaved fluids becoming hot and starting to radiate heat.
159 | Spare O'Lake Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:58:13pm |
re: #151 Naso Tang
Did anyone expect them to?
Well, to answer a rhetorical question…maybe, but not me.
160 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 8:07:04pm |
re: #158 Bagua
Right, that was what I was trying to say. The inbound effect is similar because the microwave interacts with the fluids more efficiently than the dry plastic or glass, just like the photons pass through the air, but heat the ground. So substitute the fluid for ground
Add to this the CO2 being more opaque to photons and we have more warming were it is concentrated inbound, as well as the effect of it reacting with the IR radiation out bound. The outbound IR is similar to the effect of the microwaved fluids becoming hot and starting to radiate heat.
You and Ludwig should just google some of this stuff, and you think I’m the one complicating? :=)
IR is photons. Microwave is photons. Visible light is photons.
Water preferentially absorbs photons in the microwave frequencies, CO2 preferentially absorbs photons in the low infrared frequencies. Most photons eventually end up, or produce others, in the latter range if the collide with something.
That’s all.
161 | Achilles Tang Sat, Oct 24, 2009 8:09:59pm |
re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote
re: #145 Bagua
As to AGW, the mechanism is that CO2 is good at trapping IR. It has a chance to catch some on the way down and then also on teh way back up if it reflected.
Once caught the CO2 heats up and re-radiates. Half of what it re-radiates goes back down. So in essence, it gives the surface anther shot of catching the energy and getting warm itself.
Not college level, but conceptually it’s close enough, if one wants to draw an illustration.
163 | Mad Prophet Ludwig Sat, Oct 24, 2009 8:15:43pm |
Me too, see you all later. It looks like I am just going to do some calculations tonight rather than hit the lab… that will be for the AM.
164 | Bagua Sat, Oct 24, 2009 8:16:51pm |
re: #160 Naso Tang
You and Ludwig should just google some of this stuff, and you think I’m the one complicating? :=)
IR is photons. Microwave is photons. Visible light is photons.
Water preferentially absorbs photons in the microwave frequencies, CO2 preferentially absorbs photons in the low infrared frequencies. Most photons eventually end up, or produce others, in the latter range if the collide with something.
That’s all.
You said it the best!
Thank you.
166 | Sol Berdinowitz Sun, Oct 25, 2009 4:02:57am |
God created Homer in his own image: fat, balding and yellow.
167 | ryannon Sun, Oct 25, 2009 5:44:52am |
re: #166 ralphieboy
God created Homer in his own image: fat, balding and yellow.
And like most of us, fundamentally good and doing the best he can.
169 | Decatur Deb Sun, Oct 25, 2009 7:52:43am |
re: #21 ludwigvanquixote
Also, this is just a quick post Havdalah hello. I have a hot date in the lab tonight with the lasers. (snip)
When your only tool is a LHC, every problem looks like a Higgs boson.
170 | Decatur Deb Sun, Oct 25, 2009 7:59:43am |
171 | Decatur Deb Sun, Oct 25, 2009 8:01:28am |
Another dead thread. Just waking up, here in lower Alabama.