Remember me
▼ Content

Spending



Page 2 of 4<1234>
07-06-2019 19:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
I just read a few articles about the ross ice shelf. The ones i read aren't quite as alarmed as me (i feel so much better now). Ross is supporting land based glaciers but it isn't in as imminent danger as i had heard. Someone could come up with a different study though.
This doesn't mean the planet isn't warming.


The only way Earth could be warming is if the output of the Sun is increasing.


The earth retains heat locally and temporarily when there is cloud cover.


It is not possible to hold or trap heat.

It is not possible to decrease entropy in any system. There is no such thing as 'local' entropy.
You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2019 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
Maybe my scientific terminology gets a little sloppy, sorry.
Anyway, by heat and retain i meant that the temp stays higher than it would if there were no thermal insulator.


Clouds are not a thermal insulator. Water conducts heat quite well. Better than dry air.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 20:24
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
ITN,
Regarding your opinions about social security and medicare.
Social security is just fine. When they get close to crunch time they will increase the amount of income that is subject to social security and solve the problem. They ought to do the same for medicare and maybe just combine them into one trust fund.
08-06-2019 21:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Regarding your opinions about social security and medicare.

Not my opinions. It is the opinion of the federal government.
keepit wrote:
Social security is just fine.

At the moment. It won't be in the future. By 2034, only 77% of the revenue required to may SS payments will be coming from those paying into the system. The rest of the money will have be borrowed, printed, or taxed. I have already gone over the effects of levying such massive borrowing, printing, or taxing.
keepit wrote:
When they get close to crunch time they will increase the amount of income that is subject to social security and solve the problem.

They can remove the fence completely. It will make no significant difference.
keepit wrote:
They ought to do the same for medicare and maybe just combine them into one trust fund.

There is no fence on medicare taxes.

Medicare is due to go bankrupt at a later time. Do you really want to shorten that time by combining it with social security?


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 22:04
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I don't know what you mean by fence.
08-06-2019 22:13
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I think increasing the limit significantly will make all the difference we need.
Medical costs are trying to outrace limit increases though. I hope that statement isn't too vague.
08-06-2019 22:15
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Semantics causes a lot of confusion.
08-06-2019 22:29
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
ITN,
Just curious. Where do all these unusual words you have come from?
09-06-2019 01:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: Maybe my scientific terminology gets a little sloppy, sorry.

I'll help you, no charge.

keepit wrote: Anyway, by heat and retain i meant that the temp stays higher than it would if there were no thermal insulator.

In science, the words "would," "should" and "could" are barred. Any model/affirmative explanation utilizing the subjunctive is summarily dismissed. It is called a "could'a-would'a-should'a" dismissal.

The reason is that science must adhere to observations. If you present a rock as evidence, I can't validly insist that you alter the data to account for how heavy it "should" be. I can't claim that it "would" weigh so much more if forces that I am inventing weren't making it lighter. I can't validy say that it "could" muster so much more gravity under the right atmospheric conditions. I must go with the observations as they are and no data can be "adjusted" to account for any subjunctive lest all the data be discarded.

The most common error that warmizombies make is to claim a temperture that the earth "should be," or that it "would be" if it weren't for Global Warming or Greenhouse Effect ... and then use that assertion as the basis for their circular reasoning, i.e. that their subjunctive claim therefore proves the Global Warming or Greenhouse effect that they simply asserted in the first place.

The subjunctive is properly used to explain why something is not the case or why a model/explanation is false.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 01:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: Semantics causes a lot of confusion.

Actually, erroneous semantics or lacking semantics cause confusion.

I'm here through Thursday.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 01:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: I don't know what you mean by fence.

It's a budget term used by Congress that either mandates on what certain budget allocations must be spent or mandates on what certain budget allocations may not be spent, with the full force of Federal Law, i.e. you go to jail for a long time if you execute funds on the wrong side of the "fence".

Funds can either be "fenced" (for something) or "fenced off" (from something) Government agencies hate the word "fence" because it represents a restriction on their spending. The vast bulk of the time it's bad news from "higher up" that some agency spending account has been arbitrarily reduced or blocked or frozen ... without the agency's input.

I tried to Google some references for you but Google only gives me results pertaining to how Trump's border fence is bad.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 01:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: Medical costs are trying to outrace limit increases though. I hope that statement isn't too vague.

Medical costs are not sentient being and are not "trying" to do anything.

I'm going to teach you some economics. Medical costs to consumers are reflective of the the aggregate costs borne by the medical providers. If you want to reduce the costs to the consumers then you need to reduce the costs to the providers. Any and all costs incurred by the providers will be passed along to the consumers.

I'm sure that you are aware of the completely inflated nature of the costs of higher learning. For someone to become a doctor, huge costs are incurred, and those jack up the prices doctors are going to charge to make being a doctor "worth it."

I'm sure you are aware of the overly litigious nature of the US. Anyone can sue anyone for whatever reason. Doctors have huge targets on their backs, hence malpractice insurance is outrageously expensive. The consumer has to pay this as well.

I won't run through an exhaustive list but our society is just fine with imposing those unacceptable costs on the medical profession but then strangely complains about the unacceptable cost of medical care and, incidentally, of the unacceptable cost of heathcare insurance.

The answer is to focus on reducing the costs to the medical profession. If your position is to not address those costs under the rationale that "doctors make too much money already" then you will fail egregiously in reducing costs to consumers.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 03:07
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
That sounds reasonable to me.
09-06-2019 03:10
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Speaking of reasonable and thought experiments, what do you think about dark energy and extra dimensions.
Any answer along the lines of claiming false science would be unacceptable. My question is about thought experiments. Nothing has been verified experimentally or by theorizing.
Edited on 09-06-2019 03:15
09-06-2019 03:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: Speaking of reasonable and thought experiments, what do you think about dark energy and extra dimensions.

Not much. I'm not a big fan of String Theory. Occam's Razor eliminates alternate realities(dimensions) for me. I'm not aware of any falsifiable model for "dark energy" that has held up to the scientific method.

keepit wrote: Any answer along the lines of claiming false science would be unacceptable.

Asking me a question and pretending to tell me what responses are acceptable never works out well.

My answer is that it's all false science. Deal with it.

keepit wrote: My question is about thought experiments. Nothing has been verified experimentally or by theorizing.

Nothing is ever verified by theorizing. Nothing in science is ever verified. The scientific method cannot confirm anything. No experiment proves anything to be true; it simply fails to prove it false.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 03:57
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
My thought is that dark energy is the result of extra dimensions unpacking into our familiar dimensions in the presence of "rarified gravity" as in the case of between galaxies. The extra dimensions result in extra space and the case of an expanding universe.
Just curious to see if you had any special thoughts on the subject. I don't ask many people that question even though i did teach the possibility back when i was a volunteer teacher.
09-06-2019 04:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: My thought is that dark energy is the result of extra dimensions unpacking into our familiar dimensions in the presence of "rarified gravity" as in the case of between galaxies. The extra dimensions result in extra space and the case of an expanding universe.

Just curious to see if you had any special thoughts on the subject. I don't ask many people that question even though i did teach the possibility back when i was a volunteer teacher.

Yeah ... that's not the way I see it.

I accept only one type of gravity, i.e. the classic kind that curves space and that is inextricably linked to mass ... and thus to energy.

Those who speak in terms of additional dimensions are trying to sell books, not to develop science or new systems.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 04:47
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
This theory is about curved space, sort of like negative curvature in expansion and positive curvature as in gravity.
09-06-2019 04:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: This theory is about curved space, sort of like negative curvature in expansion and positive curvature as in gravity.

What is "negative" curvature? Flatness? ... or would that be "fractional curvature"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 05:03
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Yes. It is part of the positive-negative-flat view of space. Friedman equation.
09-06-2019 05:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote: Yes. It is part of the positive-negative-flat view of space. Friedman equation.

There is only one type of "curvature" to space imposed by gravity and I don't pretend to know the cosmic density.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 05:40
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I tried to understand the Friedmann equation many times before i got a handle on it.
The density determines the curvature.
Edited on 09-06-2019 05:42
09-06-2019 06:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote:
I tried to understand the Friedmann equation many times before i got a handle on it.
The density determines the curvature.

Nope. The density determines the ultimate fate of the universe.

If the density is sufficient then the universe will expand to a point, collapse inward on itself, i.e. become a collapsing universe, until all of the universe does Big Bang in reverse, collapsing into a singularity and then repeating the Big Bang all over again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

If the density is insufficient then the universe will simply continue to expand until it dies a heat death, i.e. entropy reigns and no more work can be performed within the universe.



Like I said, there is only one type of curvature of space and it is caused by gravity which is caused by mass which Einstein showed is equivalent to energy.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 11:20
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
D e n s i t y is d e s t i n y
09-06-2019 11:22
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
IBDaMann,
You just said "nope" to my post but i think you actually agreed.
Edited on 09-06-2019 11:22
09-06-2019 15:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
keepit wrote:IBDaMann,
You just said "nope" to my post but i think you actually agreed.

I *believe* I disagreed with what I *believe* I understood you to have said.

You said that the type of curvature of space is determined by the cosmic density and I mentioned two things, ...

First, there aren't "types" of curvature of space, that there is only "curvature" whose extent is determined by the gravity at that point (note: this affects the rate time passes and is referred to as an "inertial frame of reference"), ... and

Second, that the cosmic d e n s i t y i s d e s t i n y and is not the determinant of space-time curvature.


I re-read your posts and you did not write all of the above so I don't believe I was agreeing with you ... but if you meant all of the above then yes, I agree with you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2019 17:14
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
One most important thing to be sure here - density causes curvature in that density refers to the amount of gravity and gravity causes curvature.
Or - curvature is gravity. That is a confusing point.
09-06-2019 17:18
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:IBDaMann,
You just said "nope" to my post but i think you actually agreed.

I *believe* I disagreed with what I *believe* I understood you to have said.

You said that the type of curvature of space is determined by the cosmic density and I mentioned two things, ...

First, there aren't "types" of curvature of space, that there is only "curvature" whose extent is determined by the gravity at that point (note: this affects the rate time passes and is referred to as an "inertial frame of reference"),
... and

Second, that the cosmic d e n s i t y i s d e s t i n y and is not the determinant of space-time curvature.


I re-read your posts and you did not write all of the above so I don't believe I was agreeing with you ... but if you meant all of the above then yes, I agree with you.
09-06-2019 17:19
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I don't know what you mean by "gravity...is the inertial frame reference".

Gravity affects time passage sounds fine.
Edited on 09-06-2019 17:19
09-06-2019 19:36
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Not trying sound snipey here but gravity has local and temporal effects and so do greenhouse gasses, i'.e., slow the movement of thermal energy toward outer space. That slowing results in the usual equilibrium between in coming radiation and outgoing radiation being interrupted until a higher temp (therefore higher outgoing) is achieved so that incoming and outgoing can be equal.
09-06-2019 20:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
I don't know what you mean by fence.

The limit you are talking about.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-06-2019 20:36
09-06-2019 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
I think increasing the limit significantly will make all the difference we need.
Medical costs are trying to outrace limit increases though. I hope that statement isn't too vague.

No significant difference.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
Semantics causes a lot of confusion.


No, Redefinition fallacies cause a lot of confusion. I suggest you avoid them in the future.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 20:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Just curious. Where do all these unusual words you have come from?


Void question. Be specific.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
My thought is that dark energy is the result of extra dimensions unpacking into our familiar dimensions in the presence of "rarified gravity" as in the case of between galaxies. The extra dimensions result in extra space and the case of an expanding universe.
Just curious to see if you had any special thoughts on the subject. I don't ask many people that question even though i did teach the possibility back when i was a volunteer teacher.


For a universe to be a universe, it must contain everything. If there are two or more universes, neither one is a universe, for neither one is universal in scope.

Gravity is not 'rare' or 'well done'. It's everywhere in the universe (as far as we have been able to observe), even between galaxies.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:
I tried to understand the Friedmann equation many times before i got a handle on it.
The density determines the curvature.

Nope. The density determines the ultimate fate of the universe.

If the density is sufficient then the universe will expand to a point, collapse inward on itself, i.e. become a collapsing universe, until all of the universe does Big Bang in reverse, collapsing into a singularity and then repeating the Big Bang all over again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.

If the density is insufficient then the universe will simply continue to expand until it dies a heat death, i.e. entropy reigns and no more work can be performed within the universe.



Like I said, there is only one type of curvature of space and it is caused by gravity which is caused by mass which Einstein showed is equivalent to energy.


Doesn't either of these cases presume boundaries of a universe? If there are boundaries, then what is outside it? If there is something outside it, how can we call it the universe?

It is quite possible the universe simply exists. It has always been and always will be. There ARE other theories besides the Big Bang theory, and you already know that the Big Bang theory is not falsifiable and therefore not science.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
Not trying sound snipey here but gravity has local and temporal effects and so do greenhouse gasses, i'.e., slow the movement of thermal energy toward outer space. That slowing results in the usual equilibrium between in coming radiation and outgoing radiation being interrupted until a higher temp (therefore higher outgoing) is achieved so that incoming and outgoing can be equal.


Sorry. You can't reduce radiance to increase temperature. Not even for a moment. There is no sequence. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 21:05
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
It's still the same old dispute here.
With a reduction in outgoing radiation the temp will increase if the incoming radiation stays the same.
Let's reduce the disagreement - hypothetically, would you think that temp would increase IF outgoing radiation decreased and incoming stayed the same?

My bet is that you will dodge this hypothetical.
09-06-2019 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
keepit wrote:
It's still the same old dispute here.
With a reduction in outgoing radiation the temp will increase if the incoming radiation stays the same.

Not possible.
radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
keepit wrote:
Let's reduce the disagreement - hypothetically, would you think that temp would increase IF outgoing radiation decreased and incoming stayed the same?

Not possible.
radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
keepit wrote:
My bet is that you will dodge this hypothetical.

Nope.
radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-06-2019 22:05
09-06-2019 22:14
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
No hypotheticals huh.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Spending:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact