Doubletree2
No bio...
User ID: 2881
Doubletree2
1yr 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).
Doubletree2
11mo ago
How many upvotes do I need to escape the filter?
Doubletree2
11mo ago
I'm not a new user. I've had this account for months .
You need to understand that the purpose of an election isnot to produce a "true" or "accurate" result. It is to produce a clear result that the candidates (and thier voters) can accept as legitimate, including the ones who lost. This is why we use paper ballots with documented chains of custody, this is why we have laws requiring that the counting be witnessed by representative of each candidate/party.
This is an incoherent pair of sentences. What function does having a paper trail or bipartisan autiding have except for helping to establish that the reported vote count is true and accurate (or it's degree thereof)? A paper trail will not make someone accept an election as legitimate, if they are not interested in obtaining (or respecting, as a process for determining who wins) the factual truth of the vote count.
The simple thing that after 4 years of this conversation you still don't seem to grasp is that you aren't going to convince anyone the election was legitimate by arguing the niggling technical details of individual cases and motions. You need to actually address the elephant in the room
"You aren't going to convince anyone the election was legitimate by arguing and evaluating specific factual claims". Quite right! It was clear in 2020 and even more clear now, that most who believe the election was stolen did not come to that belief through a sober consideration of the facts.
Doubletree2
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr ago
Democrats love freedom actually.
Democrats are keeping the border open for their own dark purposes
Lame boo outgroup nonsense.
Doubletree2
1yr 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.
Doubletree2
1yr 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
1yr 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
1yr ago
You don't kick out election observers and board up the windows, period
You sure do, if the number of obsevers is in excess of the legal limit. What is your alternative? Break the law simply to meet your personal standard of credulity? Such an action would be just as likely to be highlighted as one of the "irregularities" that "proves" the steal as assuage your concerns.
I don't know what kind of weasel words these claims of the GOP having the "maximum" number even means. Did the dems have more? Then how is it a maximum? How large was the facility? Is the "maximum" some generic statute, related to the fire code, for that specific facility?
These are all great questions that have a large bearing on whether or not anything untoward happened. Unfortunately you seem ignorant of the answers to them, despite the fact that this case was brought by you as evidence of your position. That you should then try to parlay this ignorance into further "evidence" is, charitably, wild as hell.
Some shit goes down that any person can plainly see is suspicious,
We do not all "plainly see" that something suspicious is happening, hence this discussion.
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
1yr 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
1yr 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.
I can't look at modern Western societies and think: This has gone great! In fact, considering the technological advancements that have been made, I have a hard time imagining things going worse short of a more immediate mass extinction event like a nuclear war or pandemic.
This is just a gross failure of imagination. Would you trade places with any contemporary non westerner, or any premodern?
The worst things you can say about the modern West is that 1. we are so fabulously rich that basic living necessities are essentially free and so we plow all of our surplus into zero sum positional goods. 2. We demand such a high quality of life that we continually push our institutions to eliminate the n-th signma risk of living past the point of diminishing returns.
About half the word is either white or East Asian. There is plenty of "high quality" genetic stock of that's what you care about.
lost every single day in the coming decades will never be replaced.
This genetic stock wasn't present at the start of the universe. It was created out of nothing by selection effects. Equivalently high quality genetic pools can be created if they are adaptive
Doubletree2
1yr ago
Why should I think that the second risk is greater than the first? Your post says that it is so, but provides no argument why that is the case.
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
1yr 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
1yr 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.
Doubletree2
1yr 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
11mo ago
But saying, leftists perpetrate attacks all the time as fc did doesn't break the rules?
Theres no agree or disagree about it. I Simply do not understand the principle behind this application of the rules. It seems incoherent to me.
Doubletree2
11mo ago
Just appalling.
Fc writes the following and this is the guy you mod?
"They whipped themselves into a frenzy over Trump, and now someone has actually tried to kill him, and for many on the left there is no actual way to walk it back, nor ability to recognize the realities of their position. All they know how to do is double-down, which makes further incidents inevitable, which in turn makes reciprocity from the Reds inevitable."
The sunlight has the potential to heat the ground to over 100ºC (212ºF). The reason it doesn't get that hot is because the ground conducts heat to the air, which then convects upwards. So the sunlight, during the day, has the power to heat the surface far above the blackbody average.
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.
and the 'average' temperature is overall higher than without.
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).
getting as cold as they do without an atmosphere (-100ºC on the moon), much like how a blanket works.
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).
Doubletree2
1yr 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?
Why arent my posts showing up in real time? It appears a mod has to approve each post of mine? Why is that?
More options
Context Copy link