patrick.net

Woohoo, the Patrick.net Meetup group got a second member!

Hater says

Does anyone know what the ideal temp and co2 percentage is for human life.

Dan got so triggered by this question that he put me on ignore.

Science is not settled by consensus. It is settled by debate, experiment, and facts.

Hi! Well, talking about the ideal level of CO2 for humans, it's 350ppm. If CO2 level reaches 450ppm, then that's a serious problem.

Damn, it took 287 posts to get a straight answer to a simple question...

Hater says

WobblyMolly says

If CO2 level reaches 450ppm, then that's a serious problem.

What happens?

Peter P says

Car-as-a-service (using self-driving cars) will be much better.

As long as our usage patterns don't increase dramatically due to the lower economic and time costs. Peter P says

VR/AR technology can eliminate the need for many types of travel.

Tons of potential here. But, we really don't know how much this will be accepted as an alternative to travel. At least if we can agree on what the societal costs of global warming are, then the we can either put an economic cost on causing more of it or place a social value on preventing it.

jazz music says

Strategist says

I'm ashamed of ungrateful people like you who cannot see what this great country, the world's greatest country, has done for Americans and the rest of mankind.

Lies lies lies. Why do you think anyone would believe this?

Because they are facts.

BlueSardine says

Damn, it took 287 posts to get a straight answer to a simple question

Unfortunately, it's not a straight answer regardless of how much people crave simplicity. Here's a more detailed but still greatly simplified discussion of where the 450ppm came from: http://sustainabilityadvantage.com/2014/01/07/co2-why-450-ppm-is-dangerous-and-350-ppm-is-safe/

Some people estimated: scientists’ models: we have a 50% chance of stabilizing the average global temperature at a 2°C increase over the pre-industrial period if we keep concentrations of CO2 under 450 ppm.

Do the skeptic / deniers think that Temperature is a function of CO2 concentration?

CO2 traps heat, so the warming (heat per unit time) is a function of CO2 concentration. The equation that described how heat flow relates to temperature is this:
----------------------
Heat / unit time = mass x heat capacity x dT/dt
----------------------
For anybody who hasn't had calculus, dT/dt is time rate of change of temperature. This can be written over a fixed period of time as
Heat / unit time = mass x heat capacity x (T2-T1)/(time 2 - time 1)
Heat / unit time is a function of CO2
You can solve for temperature at a later period of time:
----------------------
T2=T1+Heat/unit time *(time 2 - time 1)/(mass x heat capacity)
----------------------
In other words, the temperature at some time in the future is proportional to the heat trapped per unit time, which is a function of CO2, times the time that goes by. That is why people say that some amount of warming is already locked in based on what we have already polluted.

There are some implications of this:
1) Even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, the earth would continue to warm due to what it already there.
2) T and CO2 are related, so you cannot set the optimum values independently.
3) T is not a direct function of CO2. It is proportional to CO2 times time. Therefore, you cannot specify the CO2 concentration and calculate a T, so if you optimize for T, you cannot simply calculate a concentration of CO2 that matches.
4) What you can do it take a value of CO2 over time and integrate forward to calculate what the T will be.

Obviously, the earth is a complicated system, and the heat per unit time is a function of other things (like solar activity, clouds, and snow cover) as well as CO2. The earth is also not a perfectly mixed object, so the temperature is a function of space as well as time. Also, heat loss through radiation is a function of T as well. HOWEVER, that simple equation gives you a good qualitative picture of the relationship between CO2 and T for small changes in T. For bigger changes in T, the radiation term (cooling) becomes more important, and will prevent runaway warming at some very high temperature long after most if not all humans are dead.

Ironman says

Is that study from the same people that predicted that NYC will be underwater by 2015??

I imagine that the direct answer to you question is no. Why don't you figure it out. Bonus points for comparing how the IPCC report in 2007 did with sea level rises.

The larger answer is that I believe the explanation not only because I trust the authors. It's because it follows basic physics. The only thing left of interest is quantifying the effect.

jazz music says

Less taxes for sure. People are never going to have money to blow again. Any business that depends on people feeling good is fucked.

Better business, never again: people are working too many hours when they can and that is why fast food was booming for a while but not even that now. People are learning how to cook cheap and grow some of their food. Malls closing and the ones still open feature a hell of a lot of cheap shoes in stripped down stores. People buying guns and prepping is a big fad because they feel the shit coming down and the media agitates constantly profiling vaguely distressing events for doom and fear from any number of causes. Fitness spending comes from fear too.

People are hunkered down and feeling surrounded by sharks. Selective enforcement is the only thing that allows them to have freedom to do anything ever.

Financial markets you describe are a perfect set up for the grand market crash.

LOL. You are so entertaining. You should go on a TV show.
The truth is........
There are more jobs.
People are buying homes like crazy
They are buying cars like crazy
People eat out more
They are taking more vacations
They are making more money than ever
Our net worth has never been this high.

Hater says

Not entirely

Do you understand the math that I showed? Do you understand that the effect is not instantaneous, but that the co2 in the air acts over a long time to increase temperature.

jazz music says

This is a hysterical statement in that Hillary Clinton pivoted on TPP without lying to be elected.

Right, it wasn't the "Gold Standard." She came to Jesus just before her campaign kicked off.

Here is are some campaign team emails discussing how much she should distance herself. They're looking for language to make it sound to the hopeful (they name Progressives specifically) as if she clearly repudiated it, while allowing language so she can endorse it after her victory. Which is basically what happened.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46936
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55332

jazz music says

No fly zone? --you are just desperate to fawn over Trump. How embarrassing, there is nothing to most of what you say here, just desperately and blindly worshipping Trump. How can you devote so much of each day to that end?

She didn't just say it once, but over and over and over again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war

Even though in her speeches to her constituents at Goldman Sachs, she admitted the problems of a No-Fly Zone:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/in-secret-goldman-sachs-speech-hillary-clinton-admitted-no-fly-zone-would-kill-a-lot-of-syrians/

This is the famous report - by Hillary's consultants - of all the bad stuff that was in her speeches. This was composed long before the leaks revealed what she wanted hidden.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3130829-HRC-Paid-Speeches-Flags.html

Remember when Hillary said she'd think about releasing her Speeches? This is why she never did. But thanks to Wikileaks, we know.

I like the Simpson-Bowles endorsements. DO you know what Simpson-Bowles entails?

Hater says

Really?

Yes. Heat is absorbed by the sun. It radiates back from the earth. A portion of that radiation gets to space, and a portion is absorbed by the atmosphere and radiates back.

The net heat is Qnet=Qsun - Qreflected - Qradiation + Qatmosphere, where Qsun is the direct radiation from the sun. Qreflected is the amount reflected or scattered back to space and is a function of cloud cover, snow cover, paved coverage, plant coverage, etc. Qradiation is the blackbody radiation from the earth to space, and is a function that is proportional to Tabs^4 (absolute temperature to the fourth power), and Qatmosphere is the heat that is absorbed and transferred back to earth.

Qsun = 1,368 W/m2 cross sectional area. This is equal to 342 W/m2 of earth surface. Scale this to 100%
According to NASA (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php), the other values are:
Qradiation=117% from surface + 54% radiated from the atmosphere
Qatmosphere=100%
Qreflected=29%
It's a net balance:
Qnet=Qsun-Qreflected-Qradiation+Qatmosphere
Qnet=100-29-117-54+100

Increasing the CO2 concentration increases the value of Qatmosphere, so Qnet is a function of CO2. Q is heat per unit time, which is what I referred to in my equation.

At steady state (constant average temperature), Qnet = 0, and dT/dt = 0. If you instantly double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, Qnet becomes positive, and dT/dt also becomes positive. It takes some time for the system to achieve a new equilibrium. The way it does this is that the radiation, which is a function of T to the fourth power increases. However, Qnet increases by the whole amount at time=0. It takes a while for the earth to heat up enough for Qradiation to become equal and Qnet again becomes 0. This change in temperature is the signal that has to be measured. There is a lot of noise created by other factors. But an added level of complication doesn't change the way that Temperature and heat are related through time. That is well understood.

Our net worth has never been this high.

$300B more in the hole in 4Q16, actually, breaking the $8T barrier for the first time.

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm

That was funny I'll give you that

6.8% done. That's a good way to look at it.

30 years of conservative rulings by supreme court, in exchange for 4 years of trump. Another good way to look at it...

Dan8267 says

6.8% done. That's a good way to look at it.

BlueSardine says

30 years of conservative rulings by supreme court, in exchange for 4 years of trump. Another good way to look at it...

I blame Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz for that.

He isn't her. And that is the point isn't it? When you start to let that sink in you can start to get over it. You want to blame Trump for the mess we are in. It's time you acknowledge how much Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats are to blame for the Trump presidency.

Dan8267 says

6.8% done. That's a good way to look at it.

3.4% when he's elected again

ipig says

PeopleUnited says

He isn't her.

Well you're a fucking retard so you would know certainly.

PeopleUnited says

And that is the point isn't it? When you start to let that sink in you can start to get over it.

Nawww....the point is you're a liar because you weren't saying that last year. You were saying idiotic things like "ILLEGALS!!!" and "NAFTA!!!" and "WALL!!!" during which I was posting that Donald Trump isn't going to do anything except be the world's assclown.

PeopleUnited says

It's time you acknowledge how much Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats are to blame for the Trump presidency.

Obama was a good president. Hillary Clinton was a bad choice but she wa...

Ipig, You hate and disrespect Trump supporters. That is why you will spew more lies and hate. It is what you are made of.

Yeah, but Trumpligula will be lisping, "I twied to do all dose promises, I weally, weally twied." Time to unhinge for bankster cock.

jazz music says

PeopleUnited says

We get it ipig.

If a clue was paraded around you on a pedestal of gold with loud fanfares and a dozen flashing neon signs pointing at it you still wouldn't get it.

You're projecting. Too bad what you said is autobiographical and true.

Ironman says

STUDY: 89% of Media Negative Towards President Trump

And it's not becasue there is anything negative about Trump being President ! OR that there is anything negative about the things he's done as President !

Okay ?

Many of the same fucking morons who thought George W. Bush (one of THE worst presidents in the entirety of U.S. History) was successful (7 trillion dollar war of choice upon Iraq, economic collapse, etc., etc., etc.) was a "good president" will believe Trump is, too, even if nuclear waste falls from the sky and gets lodged in their brain.

Because THEY ARE FUCKING RETARDED MORONS.

Ironman says

Here, you pick

One reason no one addresses these charts is that there are too many, and no one trusted that they are real. Let's take just one: student loans. That chart shows that they grew 900% in 5 years. If you look it up you will find numbers that are no where near that big. Looks like fake news for 'nigger' haters to use your words.

PeopleUnited says

He isn't her.

If that's your only criteria for a leader, you made a good choice, but I feel sorry for you.

Quigley says

You don't wish to counter opposing viewpoints with logic or reasoned argument. You want to shout them down with blatant ad hominem attacks!

Apparently, these are not mutually exclusive activities.

Ah shit. I will look.

Ban seems to work correctly when I test it.

Do you have some example of Ironman posting in a non-thunderdome thread of yours?

Thunderdome threads are anything-goes, including allowing otherwise banned users.

You know, PatNet would be tens times as popular if piggy were banned altogether. Just think of all the people who read his shit and say "fuck this, I'm out of here".

Ironman says

Are you saying the Federal Reserve lies?

No. I'm saying that the chart should not have had 'student loans' written in bold text across the chart, because it's not total student loans.

I don't know what the chart is that you posted, but I would guess it is student loan debt owned by the government. It's probably the direct result of people refinancing private loans with dept of ed loans to take advantage of some federal programs. In any case, it's clear that someone just looked for a way to make things look much worse than they are to further a bogus narrative. It's fake news.

Here's the chart that comes up when you browse consumer credit.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/101

Is printing the truth now considered being "negative"?

It's clear that Paul Ryan is a generic Neoliberal Globalist Toad.

The obstacles aren't Trump, and not the outnumbered Democrats, but Cuckservatives in the House and Senate.

Recall his ass, and/or the House votes no confidence in the Speaker.

Better to lose the seat to a first Term Democrat than to keep Ryan in place.

Ironman says

Is that better or worse under Obama??

Do you know what is being plotted there? Do you think it is total student loans?

Anyone who has ever read one of piggy's posts appreciates it when someone ridicules piggy as he deserves to be.

Too much personal identity is tied up in Trump support to ever really have a rational discussion here. The conversation is hyper-rational. Criticisms leveled are shrugged off, not on the basis of merit, but because the people leveling them are obviously not part of the "in-group" of Trump support.

We wrongly think reason can reach the zealot.

Ironman says

Does that chart measure a "better" situation?

This might come as a surprise to you, but the judgement about what is better depends on what is being measured.

Why don't you admit that wherever you got that plot from is fake news? If it's not fake news, why don't you write to them to state that their graph is labeled incorrectly, and is therefore misleading?

The people saying:
"Trump is a dangerous fascist who must be stopped!"

Are the same people saying:
"Trump has accomplished nothing in his first 100 days!"

¯_(ツ)_/¯

Ironman says

they STILL haven't figure it out yet that oversampling just makes them (and the DEM party) look like idiots:

Actually they account for imperfections in their methodology by giving it a 3.5% margin of error. The margin of error would be way way smaller for a sample of that size if they knew it was a good SRS.

Ironman says

among a random national sample of 1,004 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 31-24-36 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents."

On November 4, 2016, Hillary Clinton led the popular vote polls by 3.3%. The average polling error since 1968 is plus or minus 2%. So, the expected range was a Clinton victory by 1.3 to 5.3%.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/

The final tally was a Clinton victory by 2%. So, the polls were off by 1.3%, which is less than the historical average.

These are facts. Anybody can look them up. Why is anybody still arguing that the polls were biased against Trump? Ironman, you are making the same arguments now that you made last November, even after the election proved that the polls were not biased and that you were wrong.