Page 24 of 228 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474124 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    For those of us less educated on the topic, Steve, can you outlay the basic mechanical system structure? In that, where Josh's posts are in err would help (me).

  2. #232
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    I'll try to get to it this weekend, pretty busy this week.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #233
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Thanks.

  4. #234
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Santer et. al.
    Which one? I have read his papers for years. His previous work counters this work. He made some of the original claims in the IPCC.

    For those of us less educated on the topic,
    For a primer, there are a lot. Here is one of many, in a simple form that does a good job of covering it. It is from a college course, from the University of Washington. But the first equation is basic blackbody, like I said. 101, day 1. Well, day 2 - he talked about coursework and his background mostly on day 1, my mistake. Been a while since I taught at college:

    https://atmos.washington.edu/~dargan/587/587_2.pdf

    If you want Irony, you can change the _2 to _3, etc. and go through the course. The majority at the beginning is water vapor and cloud affects. _7 gets into radiative forcings, where a portion of this discussion is. There are some personal differences in some values, but not in the net understanding of the subject relative to this course though.

    you're comparing solar output to radiative forcing, buuut I suppose you'll insist you're not.
    Do I need to quote myself because you can't read what I said? I did say one is a variation of power into the black body, and the other is of the insulation factor.

    You say it makes no sense to compare TSI to CO2 forcing. But I am not comparing, so much as accounting for all of the pieces of the puzzle.
    It is an argument of factors total in the equation, not of comparison. You are bringing up a point already answered as if I am missing something. Net power in vs retained power. You are the one missing my position, and attacking a strawman again.

    There is contention on this of how much is the solar forcing and related. Hence, I am re-reading "W. Soon et al. / Earth-Science Reviews 150 (2015) 409–452" - which if I can find a link I will add (edit, link found, this works for me, but my office had access I think: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682617301980 ). It discusses:

    Debate over what influence (if any) solar variability has had on surface air temperature trends since the 19th century has been controversial. In this paper, we consider two factors which may have contributed to this controversy:

    1. Several different solar variability datasets exist. While each of these datasets is constructed on plausible grounds, they often imply contradictory estimates for the trends in solar activity since the 19th century.

    2. Although attempts have been made to account for non-climatic biases in previous estimates of surface air temperature trends, recent research by two of the authors has shown that current estimates are likely still affected by non-climatic biases, particularly urbanization bias.
    It has been a while since I have gone through a bunch of this, since mostly I have just sat back and watched the predictions and models all fail in the same manner. And the underlying forcing be dropped.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-29-2017 at 09:39 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #235
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    On another note... Net neutrality. Fuck Pai. Just because it is Obama era, the idiotic Republican party wants it repealed. Trump made a promise to improve American broadband services, but already played the game of redefining the bandwidth definition for broadband. It's not over hyped. Texas already has laws that prohibit municipalities from offering these services. IMO, a Utah company UTOPIA has the best business structure for this shit and they can justify build outs in tiny cities.

  6. #236
    Republicans seem to forget that most areas only have one to two service providers. One of my clients provides broadband service to its residents and the capital costs to lay wires is high to say the least. Makes entry into the market difficult. They should just treat internet providers like they do electric companies. Accept there is a monopoly and regulate it.

  7. #237
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Just because it is Obama era, the idiotic Republican party wants it repealed.
    Not just because. Take a small bit at least and try and figure out why they really want it repealed, instead of a strawman.

    Per Pai, who makes a pretty good point:

    Asked about fears that people will have to potentially pay more for internet service, Pai, who was elevated to the FCC's top job by Trump in January, called that "false."

    "That's not the internet economy we had from 1996 until 2015 when these rules were imposed. There was nothing broken about the internet before 2015," the chairman said. "And going forward, if a company acts in an anti-competitive way, the Federal Trade Commission is expressly empowered to protect competition and consumers."
    I would hazard somethings are broken about it, unlike Pia, but for the most part he was right. When a company broke a contract and throttled or otherwise the FCC stepped in and took care of it.

    The argument seems be adding more regulation to a process that already has those rules in place? That being said, as I have seen this, my reply has been....ah, you realize Trump is the government now, and technically he could, under NN rules, impose a committee to regulate #fakenews? Want DeVos, Bill O'Reilly, Sessions in on that? I think there is a potential bullet dodged here.

    That being said - I have seen no real change in pre NN and post NN internet myself. Nor any real issue saved because of it. I see a lot of 'potentials' that didn't pop up pre-2015 that were not addressed by the courts already. If those were to happen, they would have in the past with a less educated internet savvy public. Well, AOL and the like did, but that is old news.

    I don't care either way, but I would hate for NN to become a tool that can be used later in a nefarious way, so I only really mild agree with it going by the wayside. Right now it is a political tool to bash the other side and raise alarm over some duplicate regulations that haven't really done much and have very little use in benign hands, yet can be poorly used in the wrong hands. But hey, lets clutch some pearls!
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  8. #238
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    Republicans seem to forget that most areas only have one to two service providers.
    Oh, they're not forgetting. The FCC keeps careful track of this, and one of the jobs of hill staffers is to do the research and write policy proposals based on that research. They're well aware.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  9. #239
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Seems the attach file system here is limiting pics to 620x280 - meaning I can't upload a quick pic I did of the forcing numbers. So, this will have to kinda be a two part bit. But I figure pictures would help you understand.

    In reply to this:
    you're comparing solar output to radiative forcing, buuut I suppose you'll insist you're not.
    First, I am going to post up the 2009 NASA/IPCC Energy Budget for Climate, Source: Trenberth et al. 2009 http://echorock.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Sta...09etalBAMS.pdf.



    So, the Basic is you have 341wm^2 in. This is variable though - by 1-5 Wm^2? Maybe just a portion of that? So I put a little error bar there. +/- 5 Wm^2

    Then you have Green House Gas Back radiation - of 333 Wm^2. The change would be.... 0.25 Wm^2 for the current level of CO2. So 333.25 Wm^2

    That is what I am comparing. See?
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    I worked in the telecom industry as the director of operations for a company that's specific mission was to bring broadband to rural markets. The problem with NN is not rearward looking. Quite the opposite. There are a ton of sources showing how usage has increased and is increasing exponentially. Broken out simply, there is a HUGE difference in content generation and ISPs. The ISP is nothing more than a gateway to get you to the content you want. Add to that, how data centers and local caching work and it's clear that the big play here is to force content providers into ISP controlled data warehouses. NN is critical in preserving the structural integrity of data flows. I know exactly why the fucking big corps want it repealed. Painting it as anything other than bullshit is shortsighted at best.

    Ever wonder why bundled TV subscriptions are a thing? Do a little research. Many of these big companies are bleeding profit because of cable cutters (TV). If they can find a way to rebundle access then they will, when it was never their purpose.


    This is a HUGE issue for me, personally. It will single-handedly affect the way I vote next election.


    Said another way... What value to your internet experience does the ISP add? The answer is NONE. They provide connectivity and that's it. So why then, should they be allowed to insert themselves into your experience or throttling it? Would it suprise you to know many ISPs don't even own the infrastructure, but rather lease it?



    Not that it adds credibility, but I actually had these discussions over lunch with Jay Monroe (billionaire/ CEO Globalstar) and Jim Lynch (http://www.fiberlight.com/About_Us/Leadership.aspx).
    Last edited by ironyusa; 11-29-2017 at 12:26 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •