frightening

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 10:56:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 10:21:11 AM UTC+11, gray_wolf wrote:
On 10/19/2015 10:41 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Technically speaking, the surface of the sun isn't getting any brighter, but the sun is getting bigger, so there's more surface to irradiate us, and more light hitting us.

How would you measure the difference? Would the W/M^2 on the earth's surface
increase?

You'd probably measure the difference by putting a radiometer in orbit.

Already there: it's Luna. Just A/B compare the brightness of the reflection off the
undisturbed solar-illuminated lunar surface with any conveniently located astral light source. Do
it at night

Seriously, photosphere temperature and disc size are easily measured, and the
Stefan-Boltzman radiation law is well established; solar measurements are routine.

 

[krw]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:54:20 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com Gave
us:

I've had pals at NASA--they're about .5% efficient, and finely-tuned for
regularly blowing things up.

NASA's mostly a waste of space.

Cheers,
James Arthur

You're a goddamned retard. Your brain "blowed up real good".

Speaking of a waste of space, here's AlwaysWrong!

 

[M Philbrook]

In article <f162ae4f-93a1-456c-ad08-654512cee987@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

It (NASA & the NOAA) does a far better job of putting US citizens to
work than Trump ever could or ever will.

I've had pals at NASA--they're about .5% efficient, and finely-tuned for
regularly blowing things up.

James Arthur's pals aren't an impressive bunch. From what he says, it's his pal's that are 0.5% efficient and regularly blow things up, then complain about the unfairness of other people getting promoted.

NASA's mostly a waste of space.

More probably James Arthur's social circle is a waste of space. If you can get brainwashed into thinking that the Tea Party is an organisation worthy of encouragement, you've got something wrong with your intellectual processes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


So what's your excuse?

Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 1:06:23 PM UTC+11, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 10:56:30 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 10:21:11 AM UTC+11, gray_wolf wrote:
On 10/19/2015 10:41 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Technically speaking, the surface of the sun isn't getting any brighter, but the sun is getting bigger, so there's more surface to irradiate us, and more light hitting us.


How would you measure the difference? Would the W/M^2 on the earth's surface
increase?

You'd probably measure the difference by putting a radiometer in orbit.

Already there: it's Luna. Just A/B compare the brightness of the reflection > off the undisturbed solar-illuminated lunar surface with any conveniently
located astral light source. Do it at night.

The earth's atmosphere is opaque at some wavelengths, and at those wavelengths you are measuring the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, not that of the moon or the sun.

Seriously, photosphere temperature and disc size are easily measured, and the
Stefan-Boltzman radiation law is well established; solar measurements are
routine.

This does involved the assumption that the sun's surface is a perfect radiator, at all wavelengths. The fact that helium's absorptions lines were first observed in the solar spectrum does illustrate that point that this isn't entirely realistic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 10:45:42 AM UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:

In article <f162ae4f-93a1-456c-ad08-654512cee987@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

It (NASA & the NOAA) does a far better job of putting US citizens to
work than Trump ever could or ever will.

I've had pals at NASA--they're about .5% efficient, and finely-tuned for
regularly blowing things up.

James Arthur's pals aren't an impressive bunch. From what he says, it's his pal's that are 0.5% efficient and regularly blow things up, then complain about the unfairness of other people getting promoted.

NASA's mostly a waste of space.

More probably James Arthur's social circle is a waste of space. If you can get brainwashed into thinking that the Tea Party is an organisation worthy of encouragement, you've got something wrong with your intellectual processes.

So what's your excuse?

For what? I don't go around telling people to drink unpasteurised milk or leave their kids unvaccinated, or that the Tea Party is a good thing, so I'm in rather less in need of excusing than some I could name.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:21:27 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:04:37 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


Unable to process simple arguments? I'll recap:

You said NASA was independent. I just showed they're political, slobbering
sycophants to a political agenda. Boosting Muslims' self-esteem at the
President's behest ain't independent, and it ain't science.

You're a trashy uneducated and worthless piece of garbage. It' just unbelievable how a low life cretin operating at your level of ignorance can presume to tell everyone how the government and society should be organized and managed!

Naturally, freedom, as an organizing principle, offends you. But that's not
the topic.

"Freedom", in James Arthur's book, is freedom from taxes collected to spend on anything he doesn't like. He's happy with any spending that goes on stuff that help him hang onto his private property - the army, to keep off of foreign thieves, the police to keep off domestic thieves, and the law courts to put away anybody silly enough to try to steal anything from him.

Roads, bridges, infrastructure and hospitals should be equally worthy, but strain the boundaries of his comprehension. Anything that makes the poor better off - even when it makes them better customers - is "redistribution".

"Independent agencies of the United States federal government are those agencies that exist outside of the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary). More specifically, the term may be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited."

Which part of 'executive branch' wasn't clear? And when he says their new
mission is Muslim outreach (and / or AGW), that's their new mission.

It may be part of their new mission, but it's fairly obvious that it isn't a major part of their total mission.

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established in 1958 to run the American space program. It placed the first American satellites and astronauts in orbit, and it launched the Apollo spacecraft that landed men on the moon in 1969. Today, NASA conducts research aboard earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary probes, explores new concepts in advanced aerospace technology, and is currently developing a next-generation manned spacecraft."

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

They forgot to list outreach and boosting Muslim self-esteem.

Wikipedia does have to edit its entries to keep them concise. I suspect that outreach and building Muslim self-esteem weren't so much forgotten as found to be too low on the priority list to make it into the article.

Typical super-intelligent zero-order mastermind thinking. The argument
is, implicitly, that they can't change, even given cause.

No one made any such argument

You did, when you cited saturated CO2 uptake as evidence plants couldn't
utilize higher concentrations of CO2.

Sure they utilise higher concentrations of CO2, but by getting by with fewer stomata, so they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water.

They don't grow any faster, but they can survive with less groundwater.

...you've completely lost any shred of credibility here, move on to something else, ignoramus.

Worth repeating:

You're definitely damaged material...

You're getting awfully emotional these days, Fred.

I don't see that myself. James Arthur has clearly been damaged by some kind of right-wing brainwashing which has obviously eliminated his capacity to do simple logic - the fact that the world had it's warmest year on record doesn't prevent the corn- and soy-growing states of the US from having a cool and wet growing season - after all, the growing season is a lot shorter than a full year, and the corn- and soy-growing states of the USA are a fairly small fraction of the whole world - or even of the contiguous states of the USA.

Objectively shown:

o The feds are not disinterested purveyors of truth.

Whoever said they were?

> o They use their agencies to dispense political, not scientific messages..

The agencies can do both. You would prefer the agencies to disperse the anti-scientific denialist message, but that's asking rather more of them than is asking them to put a pro-Muslim spin on the scientific messages they do dispense. If you go back far enough - 600 years or more - there will always be a Muslim scholar who made a valid contribution.

> o They report items that support their objectives, and do not report data that conflict.

That's a claim that's difficult to prove. What data does your favourite conspiracy theory tell you that they are not reporting?

I know that there are a lot of things that the denialist propaganda machine would like NASA to report - the fact that the denialist propaganda machine keeps on recycling particular scientific hypotheses long after they've been falsified in the peer-reviewed literature allows one a fairly clear insight into what they'd like NASA to report - but which particular failed hypothesis is the apple of your somewhat jaundiced eye?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:12:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

>The earth's atmosphere is opaque at some wavelengths,

http://tinyurl.com/o3k2cjp

 

[JW]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:45:58 -0400 krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote in Message
id: <q8ti2bpo46u3kda84lm2mbjaqnmspdj76g@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:54:20 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com Gave
us:

I've had pals at NASA--they're about .5% efficient, and finely-tuned for
regularly blowing things up.

NASA's mostly a waste of space.

Cheers,
James Arthur

You're a goddamned retard. Your brain "blowed up real good".

Speaking of a waste of space, here's AlwaysWrong!
Speaking of a waste of oxygen, here's AlwaysWrong!

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:59:50 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/10/2015 14:47, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:35:31 -0700, Robert Baer
robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:55:57 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

This is frightening:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/

After we dig up and burn all the oil and coal and NG that we can
access, what will we do then to make more CO2?

BTW, The first frost of the east coast is pretty much on time.


Oh, they sayeth, that is absolute proof of (whatever..fill in he blank).

I wrote a little program once that just lights up random pixels on the
screen. If you run that for a while, it's amazing the patterns that
you can see, or think you can see.

After a while it will look like white (or green) cat in a snowstorm
depending on the display screen technology. Flipping the bits randomly
or according to some CA rule gives a more entertaining screen saver.

A friend did a classic 3D test on one of the weaker random number
generators RANDU on the Tek display - the result is now well known:

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

Workstations often use life simulations or related CAs.

All our glass TTYs when they were novel ended up with ">Login:" burned
into the top LHS and likewise repeated faintly every line underneath.

My Panasonic TV annoyingly displays "Screen Saver" at random positions
by default - hardly inspiring.

It's also fun to sum a few random numbers to generate the XY
coordinates, and approximate a Gaussian hill sort of thing.

We have a Rigol waveform generator that has an LCD screen, with
incomprehensible menus, and a screen saver!

It has HELP, but that doesn't make sense either.