Doubletree2
No bio...
User ID: 2881
Doubletree2
13d ago
I would add that the skin tone "randomized palette" seems like a pretty clear CW angle as well.
I'm not seeing it. Can you explain what you mean?
Doubletree2
14d ago
Gotta be honest this seems like a very mild culture war angle. The models were already quite androgenous and subdued in their sexual characteristics (certainly there was no option to look like Schwarzenegger or Parton). The one clear CW aspect is the removal of distinct genders... But c'mon. Have you met the Pokemon go community?
The pictures of the new models linked look just look like garden variety incompetence. Yes the waists are wider but there's also just a general reduction in detail and quality. Looks like someone decided to cut corners, maybe chose the cheap 3d modelling house.
Doubletree2
15d ago
I think the nonsequitor is the assumption that whatever dynamic is happening in a green house must be the same dynamic that is happening on a planetary scale atmosphere. Its possible that one effect dominates over another in different contexts, or is just not applicable.
Maybe, why we should think they would not be the same: the "hot house effect" relies on a comparison between temperatures inside vs outside, where outside, convection tends to draw away heat. But on a planetary scale, "outside the greenhouse" is mostly just the vacuum of space where convection doesn't occur.
As far as I can see, you still have not given any explanation for how the lapse rate effect can result in temperatures far in excess of blackbody (day/night temps being irrelevant since we are interested in average temperatures)
Take a packet of gas that starts at the surface, rises to its maximum height, and then falls back to the surface. Initially it will be in equilibrium with the surface temperature. If the gas does not absorb or emit significant radiation, then it will have the same temperature at the end of the round trip as the start. There is still no mechanism by which the gas packet temperature would exceed the surface temperature nor by which surface temperature would exceed blackbody.
And obviously an entire column of surface plus air above it, is what will as a whole be radiating to space.
If a packet of gas does not exchange (absorb or emit) significant energy via radiation then the "whole column of air" will not transfer energy to space.
Doubletree2
15d ago
I'm going to add "too stupid to be allowed to vote" to my list of mod-approved ways to characterize people I disagree with.
Doubletree2
16d ago
The question then is: as the adiabatic lapse rate explains the grand canyon temperature difference, why would it not also explain the temperature difference between the surface and the effective blackbody temperature?
No, sorry, a rhetorical question is not an argument. For the second time, you are still doing the thing you accuse your opponents of: positing that some effect is explained fully by your own pet model without providing any independent evidence that it does so.
It must be noted the effective temperature of Earth (255K, -18C) is indicative of the average amount radiated by an entire column of surface plus atmosphere above.
Are you or are you not trying to rule out that radiative heat transport is a significant factor in atmospheric temperature?
If you neglect radiative heat transport then atmosphere temperature can only ever be less than surface temperature, which is blackbody.
On the other hand, if you include radiative heat transport, then you must acknowledge that different gasses have different absorption/emission spectra and so their behavior cannot necessarily be compared on 1-1 ( or equal density) basis.
Doubletree2
16d ago
I dont see how those are relevant to the study I posted. Those were open systems where mass exchange with the environment is possible, but in the one I posted the gasses are sealed in balloons.
Doubletree2
16d ago
Here is a benchtop experiment. Figure 6 apparently shows that variations in the density of air in a balloon do not affect it's cooling rate, whereas it does for a CO2 filled balloon. This would seem to contradict your claim that it's a spurious density effect.
Doubletree2
16d ago
After admonishing me for comparing model predicted temperatures of Venus to observation, you link me to a video where the adiabatic lapse model is compared to observations, asserts without independent evidence that this fully explains venus' surface temperatures, and what's more tries to generalize this to earth. This is unsound logic by your own argument.
In any case, I would appreciate it if you would explain your position to me in text, here, rather than sending me links. Or at least provide additional commentary along with the link. After watching that video I am no closer to understanding how adiabadic lapse rate results in surface temperatures in excess of blackbody nor why I should favor this over the greenhouse effect.
Doubletree2
17d ago
Your linked post mentions nothing about adiabatic lapse rate nor how it can explain Venus' temperature being much higher than would be predicted from blackbody equilibrium. Care to explain in detail what you mean?
Doubletree2
17d ago
From your first Twitter link, the guy gets it wrong right off the bat. "How can the GHGE work after so long a night?" Because of the thermal mass of the ground and atmosphere, and the insulating properties of the atmosphere which is much thicker than Earth's, and because high winds on Venus tend to equalize day/night side temps.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Doubletree2
17d ago
Reading through the article I quickly found a couple errors in reasoning. Also overall the writing style doesn't give the impression that the author is deeply knowledgeable in the subject (or in heat transfer generally). Mostly this is unconvincing to me.
Figure 7.2 provides a helpful visual representation of it, and here we see something a bit odd. The total energy flowing out of the surface is more than three times larger than the amount flowing into it from the sun.
The author gives insinuates that this somehow violates the laws of thermodynamics, but it doesn't. I can't tell if he doesn't understand this or is being intentional misleading.
However, the described mechanism is rather puzzling. In normal sensate reality, heat only flows from hot to cold
Take two black body radiatiors at different temperatures and places them near each other. Would you say that the lower temperature body radiates in every direction /except/ the side facing the hotter? Of course not. While the net heat flow will be from hotter to colder, it is totally reasonable to talk about energy transfer from colder to hotter as a matter of accounting.
we can conjecture what one such proof [of the greenhouse effect] might look like: it would have to consist of an external energy source – such as the sun or a heat lamp – that is set to warm a surface. The energy input should be measured and the surface, in the presence of greenhouse gases, should get much hotter than that input alone can provide, emitting much more energy in response.
For 2263 w/m2 solar irradiance, 0.7 albedo, 0.85 emissivity, Venus "Should" only have a surface temperature of less than 200c, instead of the 400+c we observe. Internal heating of Venus appears to be negligible (10s of mW/m2 at the surface).
Given the analogy youve made with election deniers (totally not the same structure at all), it's probable my point didn't come across.
When you said "hbd counters the [institutional racism] argument", I imagined someone actually making that argument in the context of unequal outcomes. I.e. Saying the real words to a real person, perhaps in a public forum, who has prior beliefs in the opposite stance (differences are due to systemic racism).
But, it sounds like that is not what you had in mind. So who is making the argument, who is the recipient, and what is the forum where the argument is occurring?
Asiding your aside: "inherent" seems to me to be the crux of the whole debate! I did not mean "invariably". If intelligence were easily malleable, making stupid people smarter would just be a matter of better education or nutrition or something. Yet the HBD stance is that your intelligence is capped from the moment you're conceived.
Doubletree2
1mo ago
Geographical proximity seems like a blunt instrument to solve problems like this. If the betlins have suffered some discrimination, why is the fact that they make up 60% of one province relevant? Is their plight any worse than if they had been distributed/diluted to 1% in all the other provinces? Arguably they have it better, being able to easier to form informal networks, autonomous zones, etc to look out for their own. The 1%er would have a greater cause but less ability to secede.
And in the Internet age personal relationships and economic transactions are increasingly online, there geographic proximity is virtually meaningless. Why should the interactions of individuals be mediated based on rules-boundaries that are purely geographic?
That challenge can only be defeated by pointing out that sometimes certain groups get arrested more because they are more criminal, or score lower on tests because they are less smart, or whatever
No I don't think so. If your goal is to be rigorous and fact based, then asserting a different simple explanation for a complex and highly path dependent process is more likely to be wrong. It's also just not logically how you disprove things anyway.
On a political basis, where facts don't matter, or where people are unlikely to be swayed by mere facts only, it's also not an effective challenge for the reason I said downthread: you're just confirming your opponent's biases.
I think there are many possible antidotes to the idea that we need institutional discrimination to fix prior discrimination and HBD is among the worst of these.
I don't know how the HBD vs racism argument got wrapped up with meritocracy, but it seems to me they are totally orthogonal . I wouldn't make someone with down syndrome or fetal alcohol syndrome, or extreme lead poisoning, or who suffered so much racism that they didn't learn to read, the CEO of my company, no matter how unfair their circumstances, no matter that their conditions is totally out of their control. Meritocracy doesn't need any explanation whatsoever for why differences in abilities exist.
Doubletree2
1mo ago
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else have the impression that there bas been a general increase in just bad, poorly socialized, aggressive, or anxious dogs? Probably over 75% of the dogs in my dog-sphere (friends' dogs and neighborhood dogs that we see often) have some sort behavioral issues that makes me not want to spend time around them (the dogs). I could count the number of "actually good dogs" amply on one hand.
I don't remember it being this way in my childhood. But obvious issues with trying to compare today to my childhood memories.
the value that it adds is that it counters the argument that differences in average outcomes between ethnic groups are evidence of discrimination, perpetrated by either members of better-performing groups or anyone who is casually involved in the outcome or its measurement.
It doesn't actually do this though, in practical terms, in a conflict/political context. If you respond to the blank-slatist-unequal-outcomes with "actually, black people are genetically less intelligent so there's no problem here", you're not just shooting yourself in the foot, you're shooting yourself in the face.
The person who makes the former argument already believes that society is full of people who believe black people are inherently stupider/more criminal/whatever and make real consequential decisions based on that belief. When you say then, "yes I do believe black people are inherently stupider and intend to make practical, perhaps policy decisions based on that, and here's all the science that shows I'm right", that is not a counter argument. It is exactly the opposite of a counterargument.
Doubletree2
2mo ago
Right, this is what I repeatedly alluded to, why I called your original point incoherent-- if legitimacy is subjective, still, any one's assessment of what is or is not legitimate cannot be, in and of itself, a basis for a practical election process. It is a fundamentally unworkable position to take, because it is impossible to simultaneously meet all standards of credulity. I suspect you are only retreating to it to avoid having to argue your position on its merits.
But also, the claim that deniers arent making or haven't made categorically factual claims is not true. It's just a straight lie.
Endlessly repeating "contested environment" does not negate the fact that the steal crowd is making claims about factual matters which can be evaluated on a factual basis given the evidence available to us.
If they don't care about facts, and want to "take their ball and go home", and force us from a real existing condition where the guy with the most votes wins to one where we have to renegotiate our electoral processes from the ground up, that just means they've been prosecuting aforementioned claims in bad faith-- and their bad fath claims should be responded to appropriately--
Doubletree2
2mo ago
Every region has its own driving culture. NJ may suit you, but I find driving there to be absolutely miserable.
Among regions with aggressive drivers, I much prefer Boston. They are aggressive, but in a precise, pointed way rather than what I perceived to be the raw hooliganism of New Jersey.
The fact that NJ has fewer traffic deaths than other areas is probably more due to the fact that they've eliminated unprotected left turns than any particular skill of their drivers.
Doubletree2
2mo ago
Now if you meant targeted reform like stricter limits on prescribing then it would likely do some good.
I think this experiment has already been tried. Opioid prescriptions are the lowest they've been in decades, down 50% from 2010. Curiously, the downward trend in prescriptions coincides with the upward trend in opiate ODs
https://thegarrisonproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/opioid-prescribing-1400x788.png
Doubletree2
2mo ago
Looking at the fentanyl deaths per year shows the dramatic spike beginnings in the 2015-2016 timeframe. I wondered what caused this spike, why that particular point in time and why so large? Fentanyl has been around for a long time, first being synthesized in the 50s.
An explanation that sounds plausible: opioid prescription rates have been increasing since at least the 90s, either for legitimate or illegitimate reasons (as alleged in lawsuits against Purdue pharma etc).
Opioid prescriptions peaked in 2010 but by this time we have a large subpop hooked on opiates. when prescriptions are heavily curtailed, addicts still need their fix, so they turn to illegal substitutes. First heroin (heroin ods start to rise in ~2011), and then illegal fentanyl. Fentanyl wins out because it's potency probably makes it cheaper than heroine per "unit high", and likewise it's high potency makes oding easier. not to mention the profliferation of fentanyl analogues which further complicates dosing appropriately.
If true it seems like another, particularly tragic , lesson in unintended consequences, or cruel indifference if you subscribe to the allegations against the pharma companies.
And unfortunately the same features that make it cheap and deadly also make it harder to fight a drug war against it. It is apparently easy to manufacture and total volumes trafficked are relative low, in many cases being trafficked through international mail.
Doubletree2
2mo ago
I will also chime in to say, as someone who has felt frustrated by many the election fraud claims, these are all reasonable and important concerns and I absolutely agree with the overall need to have high quality election processes.
No, it's incoherent. There is literally no point in having audits or paper trails if there is not an objective measure of who wins an election. In our actual reality, the organizing principal we use is, " the guy with the most votes wins" (to first order). Even the steal crowd universally couches their arguments in terms of stolen votes, vote counts, counting processes etc. factually, the number of counts matters, because that is the agreed upon standard.
Someone can always in principle defect from the process, but that is not particularly interesting since anyone can always defect from any process. In that case, the losing party should be honest and say, "I don't like this outcome, so fuck you I won't respect it" rather than endlessly engaging in claims of irregularities in the administrivia.
the onus is on election officials to convince the losing party that they lost fair and square.
This doesn't logically follow from what you wrote above. Granting we have a mutually agreed upon process (as you say), even if it has no contact with any objective truth or measure, if party A has a concern, they should be able to point to some irregularity in the paper trail. That is it's whole reason for existing, by your own argument. If they think the process itself is unfair, they can always point to a specific attribute of the process. If party A just sits back and says, you know what, this seems fishy, why don't you bring me another rock and maybe that will assuage concerns, there's no reason why that should shift the burden of proof at all.
This is a misunderstanding. Blackbody temperatures are often reported as global averages, which is why the moon daytime high is above the "blackbody temperature" -- because the average blackbody temperature includes the night side. You can do the Stefan boltzmann calculation for the day side of the moon. You will find that the daytime blackbody temperature is about 400k, which is very close to the measured daytime surface temperatures.
This is the part that you still have not shown. I would appreciate it if you would do just the thermodynamics 101 energy balance calculation to show the effect.
A packet of air on the surface on the day side will perhaps pick up energy from the surface. This warms the air, but also cools the surface. If this packet of energy is moved to the night side, it will deposit it's energy onto the surface; the surface will warm and the packet will cool. This tends to equalize temperatures between day and night sides but cannot provide a net increase in temperature (of sum of day and night side) due to conservation of energy. The global average temperature is still blackbody (day side being warmer than global average blackbody and the night side being colder).
No, the blanket analogy is invalid. If the gas is transparent to radiation, then it provides no barrier to radiative heat transport from the surface. In fact, the presence of a gas would reduce the insulating effects because it provides a conductive/convective path away from the surface (vacuum being the best insulator).
More options
Context Copy link