Posts by Rik Myslewski 147 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Jan 2009
Interesting. I’m a psychopathic criminal. What’s more, I frequently associate with many other psychopathic criminals. Who knew? I think I’ll spend the evening on a gleeful spree of rape, plunder, murder, and rooting for Real Madrid over Man City. Thanks for the by-your-leave …
One quick comment about biomass: According to most biomass studies, only a small percentage would be from burning wood, and that wood would largely be waste from industrial logging. The vast majority of biomass energy conversion would be from urban and rural waste — food waste (of which there is an enormous amount) and other waste. Don’t worry about forests; they’ll be fine (and necessary).
You do know, of course, that your analyses are quite incorrect, and that the vast, vast majority of qualified, objective climate scientists are more than merely aware of your errors, they can pick them apart with precision. I can't help but wonder what your motivations might be. An interesting psychological experiment, to be perfectly honest.
I find it interesting that you make outlandish, unsupported assertions without even attempting to provide data that confirms your theses. Let me join in the fun: You are clearly an Ionesco rhinoceros, interested only in destruction of logic rather than reasonable, fact-based discussion. Prove me wrong, Perissodactyla Rhinocerotida ...
I can only provide verifiable data for wildfires in the U.S. since 1983 — when such data began to be centralized — but acreage has most definitely increased: https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires
Oh, and you want to talk about how climate science is a "religion"? Tell you what: The next AGU annual conference will be in Washington DC in late 2024. Come meet me there, and I'll buy you a beer and introduce you to some of the better-informed, data-supported scientists studying this challenge, and see whether after an honest discussion you can still dismiss the understanding of the climate challenge as a "religion". My treat.
Oh, and trust me, American beer is vastly improved since the last time you may have visited our shores.
Ah, the old "Scientists and rapacious IPCC members are raking in squllions of Euros for telling governments the lies they want to hear!!"
Hmm ... the most recent IPCC report had 270 main authors from 67 countries. How were they paid? By whom? How much did each member of the "IPCC management" receive? And if it''s only those insidious scientists being paid off, exactly who is paying them? How much? And what evidence 'do you have to track the "billions per years" that you claim are being distributed?
You silly, silly man ...
You might investigate this concept called "science" someday. It's based upon data, analysis, and the reasonable intersection of both. Wild-eyed speculation is right out.
You write, "Every climate model existing is and has been wrong so far." I'm sorry, but I do believe that a careful, properly objective analysis of that statement might be best expressed as "Bullshit!"
Do spend a wee bit of time examining the backcasting successes of CMIP6 — or even CMIP5 — and NCAR's CSEM2 (both WACCM6 and CAM6), then get back to me, m'kay?
Hmm ... I'd be interested to see your data on how the recent measurable increases in vapor pressure deficits and their clear attribution to climate change–exacerbated warming and evapotranspiration have had no effect on the increase in wildfires in the western United States and southwestern Canada.
"Oil companies don't use fossil fuels - people do".
Let me edit that, if you don't mind: "Heroin, fentanyl, and meth dealer don't use drugs - people do."
Sure, let's allow anyone to produce anything they want at any volume they want, and blame their products' ill effects on the users of those products.
Seriously, though, every rational planner working to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change agrees that we humans need the freedom — nay, the necessity — "to be able to travel around, heat their homes and eat food." Duh. The question is how to manage a carefully calibrated transition from today's clearly provable warming-exacerbating GHG flood to a less destructive energy basis.
That's the challenge. Luckily, many members of our species are not only rational, but resourceful.
You are, quite simply and easily provably, incorrect.
A quick bit of ... uh ... science: If it weren't for the Earth's greenhouse-gas blanket, simple physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body equations, for you nerds out there) proves that the Earth's temperature would average about -15ºC. Thanks to those gasses (and, of course, water vapor), we average around 15ºC globally — though that number is steadily rising. Y’see, loosely bound molecules such as CO2 and CH4 are excited by IR radiation reflecting off the Earth’s surface, and thus re-radiate some of that energy back into the troposphere, measurably warming that atmospheric layer while simultaneously cooling the stratosphere, as has been observed for decades. Just true.
What our rapid addition of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere is doing is mucking with that fine balance. We're cooking ourselves. No argument. Provable. Simple as pie.
Luckily, we humans are smart. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it — if we hurry — and make a boatload of money doing so.
Okay, you clearly don’t understand the simple physics behind the unarguable fact that our addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is warming the world — or perhaps you know something other than that which nearly every competent climate scientist understands to be true. Or perhaps you believe in some whacko conspiracy lunacy such as “They’re trying to control us!” or “The scientists are all in it for grant money!” crapola.
Do you disagree with the “Well, duh …” clear bit of physical reality that underpins climate science? If so, and if you have proof of the errors you see in that experimentally provable reality, perhaps you should share your well-documented findings with the scientific community. I’m certain they’d find your insights of interest and value.
Uh, no …
The First Amendment merely — and wisely — disallows governmental suppression of speech. Independent entities such as you, me, Facebook, or your local newspaper are perfectly free to present, support, or champion any ideas that they — we — may wish to stand behind or they — we — may refuse to offer them a platform. Compelling you, me, Twitter, or Truth Social to provide a platform for ideas they deem dangerous or utter bollocks is intellectual tyranny.
There are assholes in this world. There are sniveling dickheads. There are embarrassments to humanity. There are worthless wastes of eons of human evolution. There are puke-inducing turdmen who make reasonable folks weep to be members of their species.
And then there's Martin Shkreli ...
"Overall, it is insulting to pretty much anyone who isn't James Damore."
Beautiful line — that is, if one defines "beautiful" to mean, "My sentiments. exactly."
Damore, as you explain and to which I concur, is not the most subtle, most nuanced sandwich at the picnic, tool in the toolbox, knife in the drawer. He may be able to code and/or architect efficiently, but I — if I were a Google manager — would keep him far, far away from any interactions with Actual Humans™.
Fire him? Well, not a bad idea — although such a decision is, of course, dependent upon who else is in his workgroup, if he plays well with others on a daily basis, or if his skills are commiserate with his salary.
But, all in all, it's Google's decision — and Damore certainly didn't help his case by proving that he's not exactly the world's most cogent thinker.
Heaven forfend! Do you actually mean to imply that the Republican-controlled FCC and its minon-master Ajit Pai is actually favoring monopoly business over Average Americans™?! Stop the presses! The populace must be informed! I'm sure that once they realize they're being screwed, they'll rise up against their corporate masters, armed with the requisite pitchforks and torches.
Seriously, though, Kieren, thanks for your careful and detailed report about how the GOP is, yet again, screwing us Americans in ... well ... the opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body.
Chris, thanks for an excellent, readable, thorough, and eminently understandable article. Having left El Reg over two years ago, and having since devoted all my tech energies towards climate-change science rather than computing, it was pure pleasure to catch up on what many of us in the tech world have seen for decades as the Holy Grail — well, one Grail, at least ("He's already got one! It's very nice ...") — of HPC: the eventual merging of mass storage and direct CPU-addressable memory, preferably in multi-server fabrics (is that still a reasonable bit of descriptive prose? [I'm frightfully out of the loop ...]).
Two quick questions, though: you mention phase-change memory — is that still undead? And how's Crossbar and their ReRAM doing, financially?
Just a quick question, Big John — well, three, actually:
First, please disprove the simple and demonstrable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave (IR) radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Second, please explain how it's meaningless that that warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in, say, the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can in no way account for the same global temperature increases.
Third, challenge and refute all of the easily correlated temperature measurements, such as those by NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more.
Or would simply prefer to ignore the well-vetted and carefully analyzed science created — and thoroughly argued over, trust me — by thousands of researchers from a broad range of countries? Or maybe you would go as far as to imply that all of those thousands of scientists' work is somehow an insanely complex and conspiratorial fraud? Might you be one of the "climate science is political" folks who hide behind ludicrous “lib’ruls wanna steal our freedoms ’n‘ guns” arguments? Or might you desperately latch onto crazy ’n‘ unprovable solar-variability theories, or some other non-empirical claptrap?
It's science, dear boy — measurable, testable, and replicable. And the only reason we of scientific training and practice find a need to defend it is because unscientific folks such as yourself — who in your silliness describe our understanding of scientific results, analyses, and recommendations as a "religion" — are so vociferous in your politicized, unscientific, data-starved attacks.
What do you fear?
Please, sir, just go away. Go away. And, might I humbly request, go away quickly. There are other websites that I do believe at which you might find more comfort and cursor: Breitbart? Infowars? World News Daily? The Daily Caller?
You'll be happier there amongst your science-denying peers, those of the "Don't blind me with facts 'n' data!" ilk. And we'll all be happier when you focus your energies there, seeing as how we won't have to deal with you hateful simplicity anymore, and you won't have to deal with our pointing out such silliness as, "It's obvious the science is wrong because the models are complete bullshit."
Silly, silly man ...
G'bye. Be well. And don't forget to write when you find work ...
@Big John: "Get back to us when the temps start to rise again, okay?"
Hmmm ... here's one dataset in which you might be interested: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Or do you not believe that one simply because it's "from duh gub'mint?" If not, how 'bout http://bit.ly/1ot2Lpu
Still too governmental? Then how 'bout the satellite dataset that climate-science deniers — okay, "contrarians" — seem to prefer: http://bit.ly/2hQksAC
Or what datasets are you talking about?
I'm quite sorry, but you are quite seriously, scientifically, and undeniably quite in error. You assert without evidence.
If you could do me the kind favor of citing peer-reviewed, well-supported, and non-moronic papers supporting your silliness, I'd be more than happy to refute them, one by one.
M'kay?
Quick question: wouldn't it be reasonable to call someone who disputes the reality of evolution a person who "denies" evolution? Would you call someone who disputes the reality of heliocentrism a "denier" of heliocentrism?
The basic — and may I repeat that? thanks: "basic, basic, basic, basic" — and irrefutable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere, surface, and ocean in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, have been well-demonstrated for many decades. Someone who calls that solid physics into question — oh, and not the intense and active squiggling around the margins regarding future effects and considered solutions, which many reasonable scientists still debate — are, quite simply, deniers of irrefutable facts. "Truth," one might even say.
"Deniers" is not a "pejorative" term. It's simply an accurate identification.
Oh, and when you have a free nanosecond, hop aboard some of the right-wing wacko websites and see who really are the "fanatics" who want to burn their enemies "at the stake." It ain't the scientists, kiddo.
"And people say real men are a dying breed. What could possibly give them that idea..."
Ah yes, real men let twits with no understanding of economics, let alone international trade and regulatory subtleties kick them in their employment-chances bollocks without a complaint or a whimper.
"Please, sir, may I have another? I'm a Real Man™!"
@Gene Cash — You are, I can only assume, being facetious when you say "NASA is not willing to fight for it" in regard to funding. NASA has been fighting the good fight for decades now, trying to squeeze pennies, nickels, and dimes out of it recalcitrant Congress – which only become more difficult after the Republicans took control.
Don't blame NASA for underfunding, blame your congressional representatives.
@Pompous Git
"... the breakup of Arctic ice allows Earth to lose more heat than it does when the ice remains intact."
You are, quite simply and empirically provably, incorrect. Look up "albedo" someday, and learn how an ice-free Arctic absorbs solar radiation rather than reflecting it.
"The Register has always been left leaning..." Damn you, sir, damn you! I had just sipped a fine demi-mouthful of Calvados when I read your counterfactual analysis, a bit of droll hilarity that caused a dram of beautiful Basse-Normandie liquor to leap from my nose onto my keyboard instead of sinuously traversing down my gullet to where my liver awaited it with warm anticipation.
Perhaps I shouldn't indulge in expensive eau de vie de cider while reading The Register's Comments section.
My bad.
I, an ancient Reggie, must weigh in on your bit of tepid twaddle, Ivan 4. Your "no appreciable temperature rise for more than 18 years" assertion is, I can only assume, based on John Christy's (UAH) manipulation of satellite data-acquisition over the past few decades.
That "manipulation" indentifier, as you'll know if you understand the basics of satellite data, is not an accusation, but merely a simple definition of how satellite multi-wavelength radiance data requires manipulation to transform such data into approximations — with, it must be admitted, wildly wide error bars — of temperature data. Oh, and that satellite radiance-sensing studies only cover the mid to upper troposphere, and not down here on earth where we Puny Humans™ live.
If you've done your research — and I'm assuming you have — you already know that the only other (significant) analyst of the satellite record is Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, California. Check out this reasonable analysis by their VP and Senior Research Scientist Carl Mears, as well as his quote: "I do not expect that the hiatus and model/observation discrepancies are due to a single cause. It is far more likely that they are caused by a combination of factors. Publications, blog posts and media stories that try to pin all the blame on one factor should be viewed with some level of suspicion, whether they are written by climate scientists, journalists, or climate change denialists."
So what it appears that you're attempting to assert is that NOAA, NASA, the Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, BEST, and any number of other surface-temperature analysts are somehow involved in a global conspiracy to skew their ever-more-accurate conclusions (any scientist who doesn't clarify his conclusions due to new and better analyses of his data is an ass) for political or selfish reasons.
Damn, dude — if that's what you imagine might be even remotely possible, I've got this lovely li'l bridge for sale. For you? Such a deal I could make!
Oh, riiiiiiiight ...
All that climate scientists care not about is not the truth, but only lining their pockets with scads of grant money ...
Sure ..
Yeah ..
Have you ever heard about honest inquiry? Have you ever heard of professional integrity?
Trust me, dickhead, not everyone in the world is as corrupt and easily bought as you.
"No it has nothing to do with people"
Sorry, sir, but when you make a statement as utterly ignorant of simple science, statistical analysis, historical data, and — well — the opinions of tens of thousands of folks demonstrably more educated than you are on the topic, perhaps the most cogent response to such a silly assertion might be:
"Blllllllpppppppgggghhhh!!!!"
I've been following Reg commenters — let's face it, a somewhat right-leaning bunch — and their climate-change opinions over the past five or six years, and I gotta say that the recent trend is heartening.
Sure, here in the Land O'Reg there's still a comparatively high percentage of know-nothing science-deniers when compared with other supposedly rational website communities, but that percentage has been dropping precipitously in the last year or so.
Encouraging.
Perhaps the obvious reality of the physics behind global warming is becoming clear to the smart tech folks who frequent this site? Perhaps the blindingly obvious propaganda of the fossil fuel industry has insulted their sensibilities? Maybe Reg commenters have taken it upon themselves to actually study the data and not merely denialist "Them commies be a-commin'!" screeds?
Dunno ...
But the slow-but-steady transformation of my well-loved Reg community from blinded denialists to thoughtful "What the %#€&$! are we going to do about this?" forward-looking planners is heartwarming.
Thanks, guys 'n' gals.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
