Doomstead Diner Menu => The Kitchen Sink => Topic started by: RE on August 11, 2012, 02:45:15 AM

Title: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 02:45:15 AM
Obsolescence of the Obsolete (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/11/obsolesence-of-the-obsolete/) now UP on the Diner Blog.

This is a major OPUS off the keyboard of RE I have been working on for a few days, it tops 4000 Words.  Weekend grist for the Diner Mill over breakfast.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: EndIsNigh on August 11, 2012, 03:49:21 AM
Hey mate just a heads up that the link here doesn't work.  Got it from the blog page though.
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 03:55:23 AM
Thanks EiN.  Link now Fixed.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: g on August 11, 2012, 06:01:39 AM
Quotes RE "
"Then more recently is Nobody, a regular on Reverse Engineering and one of the few Females who would drop in with the Testosterone Crowd who made a couple of Brief Appearances here on the Diner after we got it going, but who now is somewhere Out There in Lurkerville doing who KNOWS What?

Ross also has disappeared, Karpatok has disappeared and Jb makes only Brief Cameo Appearances here on the Diner these days. Ashvin aka Watson who for a couple of months was ALL OVER the pages of the Diner as well as his Home The Automatic Earth is also MIA here. Ashvin actually exceeded my own hours logged on to DD, but he no longer surfs this way anymore, at least not signed in anyhow."

"Finally, most troubling for me  personally is my Co-Founder of the Doomstead Diner, Peter. I have known Peter for a long time on the Net, since we first met up on Market Ticker in around 2009 I think it was.  Peter and I spent many hours at the keyboard on Reverse Engineering discussing Conspiracy Theories, Hydroponics and Philosophy of Life in general"


I was not an original Diner member on the old board but also have become saddened and dismayed by the silence of these most informative and impassioned members.

Just yesterday I had posted a message to them asking that they drop in to say hello if they were busy to let us know all was well with them.

Peter is also a special case for me. He is my favorite Diner poster and was my reason for becoming a member. Peter and his writings are brilliant, constructive, lacking in ego, totally original and masterfully written. How I hope he will return soon and embellish the Diner blog with more of his works.

 RE, I would like to make a special request if you have any of Peter's older unpublished on the Diner works; that you find the time to make them available under a special topic of Peter's works. There is no doubt in my mind they would be welcome reading to most Diners and are well worth archiving.  Thanks, GO         
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: EndIsNigh on August 11, 2012, 06:28:59 AM
Some interesting themes going on in this article, from the social aspects of the internet, to the nature of intellectual debate.  In the real world as on the internet, people drift in and out of our lives, observing the rule that nothing is static.  While there is some healthy exchange of thoughts and information here as in other venues, as you pointed out humans tend to talk AT each other, instead of talking together.  How can any significant understanding come from a process of "I defy you, you defy me?"  I see this is in part caused by not listening, or in this case not reading.  We're always evaluating everything against our preconceived notions.  Meanwhile, there is no absolute reality and so contradicts our desire to have all the answers.  I watch myself doing it from time to time and anyone who is true to themself must too. 

So why don't we listen or read?   It's because almost all activity we humans engage in tends to involve building and supporting the ego.  We create and defend our own version of the truth to lend support to the identity of self.  It is the source of all conflict.  I think you realise this going by your observation that the world's biggest ego drives everyone away, though I wouldn't be too hard on yourself because we're all doing it in our own way.  The first step in taming the ego is in being aware of it's activity from the third person perspective.  By watching this way you increase your conciousness, if we define it by upgrading an unconcious process to a concious process.  You say it's who "I AM" and while that's true, the ego part of who you are is only one of the programs running, not the whole matrix.  Being more mindful of this helps to improve the value of information exchange, assuming all parties are on the same page.

As you said there are bigger themes that the blogosphere and commentariat tend to agree upon despite their specific Brand of DoomTM.  I would hazard a guess that the core themes are aligned with cultural myths as outlined in the works of Joseph Campbell.  It's the universal myths that we find our common ground despite the dividing nature of the separate self.  If we focus on the universal myths we might overcome the limitations of the infinite personal myths.  It's like saying, lets agree to disagree on all the idiosyncratic aspects of the multitudinous Brands of DoomTM and instead agree to discuss the myths and stories that underly them.  It could lead to a healthier sense of community instead of a sea of 'me.'
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 07:58:36 AM
RE, I would like to make a special request if you have any of Peter's older unpublished on the Diner works; that you find the time to make them available under a special topic of Peter's works. There is no doubt in my mind they would be welcome reading to most Diners and are well worth archiving.  Thanks, GO         

There is nothing of Peter's in the Diner left unpublished.  I do have REAMS of stuff from him in the archives of Reverse Engineering, but I won't publish that stuff without his express permission.

I'll work on getting him back in here.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 08:17:31 AM
It's like saying, lets agree to disagree on all the idiosyncratic aspects of the multitudinous Brands of DoomTM and instead agree to discuss the myths and stories that underly them.  It could lead to a healthier sense of community instead of a sea of 'me.'

Since you have BoDs Trademarked, does that mean I have to pay you a Royalty for using it?  LOL.

"Agreeing to Disagree" has never been one of my Strong Points either. I will however endeavor not to jump all over everything people write here all the time.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: Wyoming on August 11, 2012, 11:41:27 AM
Ok RE, I'll bite.  I definitely fit your occasional commenter general lurker description.

Since I am interpreting your article as sort of a mea culpa and a request for content at the same time I will hop in for a bit.

As in anything where folks like yourself control the medium you are going to get a commenter mind set that tends to mirror your own as most folks are only confrontational to a point (which is commonly reached when they get hammered from all sides, insulted, banned, fail to adhere to the requisite ideology, get tired of reading comments that are unnecessarily long, etc) and then they fade into lurking or just flat do not drop in any more.  I am sure you do chase a lot of folks away with your extremely intense verbiage and volume of comment (it is pretty hard to take the time to read really long comments when one starts to choke in the first paragraph or two).

As an example I read a post of yours a day or two ago on why you don't believe in AGW and you posit an alternate physical process as the cause of Global warming.  IMHO your post is almost certainly tin-foil-hat nonsense.  I have studied the subject of AGW for a number of years am tired of comments like that one as comments written that way always turn out to be nonsense.  If you really are a scientist (and I accept that you were trained as one) then you know the proper method to examine such a hypothesis as yours and thus determine if it has substance.  When you make an extraordinary claim you have to have extraordinary evidence or you are talking nonsense.  When you dismiss scientific conclusions, arrived at by a couple of thousand PhD experts, which are based upon a vast pile of data and hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that are in almost total agreement, without providing data and peer reviewed research to back up your dismissal you are not working from a valid position.  As you know I think.  So, if you have an interesting idea (or at least think you do) then present it in a fashion that opens up a discussion rather than the opposite.  I would also avoid claiming that you are a member of the 1 or 2% of scientists that are in opposition to the AGW consensus.  If you were familiar with that study you would know that it was based upon the group of a couple of thousand PhD's who are fully immersed in the studies of Global Warming on a full time basis.  You are not one of those people.  And you should also be aware that the folks who do make up the 1-2% are considered to be largely completely discredited in scientific terms as their research has been shown to be inaccurate, not-supported by the data, proven full of miscalculations, full of bad applications of physical principles, fails peer review, etc.  They consist of such names as Christy (his religious convictions do not allow him to reach conclusions that his data indicate he should), Lindzen (a history of being paid to support non-scientific conclusions - tobacco does not hurt you - burning fossil fuels does not warm the climate), Plieke (who knows except that he can't seem to get the physics down correctly) and some others like them who are less famous.  Not a group one wants to claim membership in if you are trying to get folks to take you seriously.

Now that I have poked a big stick in your eye let me address your article a bit.

I like it.  I find your article description of the doomer blogosphere pretty accurate from my perspective. 

Most extreme positions are unsupportable if one introduces facts or science into the discussion.  Those and a vociferous failure to adhere to the blogs meme makes for an uncomfortable existence there or banning.  I have experienced both.  I generally walk away when I realize that, as smart as the blog owner might be, the place is being run by a bunch of insane, ignorant, ideological wack jobs.  Genius people are often insane and frequently have outsize egos that lead them astray ( I am not saying you fit this bill but some of the folks you mentioned likely do).  There is no sense in participating at that point.  The only blog I ever found that provided a good platform for discussing the problems we have and potential solutions was The Oil Drum in its first incarnation (not anywhere near as good any more).  I would like to find another and am always searching.

There are lots of bad versions of doomerism out there.  Guy McPherson does write some interesting stuff but his extreme positions are not scientifically defensible and if you believe what he says you SHOULD party as long as you can, as there is no point in worrying about the future any longer.  He does more harm than good IMHO.  I used to read TAE but never go there any more (A is a wack job).  Zero-Hedge occasionally.  Tyler?  Denninger?  Off their rockers half the time.  The trouble is that they all have fatal flaws that detract so much from the value they have. Religious fervor at the expense of rational thought, "free market capitalism" as a religion (what better way to destroy the earth?), Glod bugs, racists, survivalists (who clearly know next to nothing about anything but weapons). 

I break the categories down a little differently.  There is the BAU camp which is divided up into the right and left wing cornucopian's.  Right says to stay the course everything will work out and God will save us if technology doesn't.  Left says technology will save us if we convert to non-fossil energy forms and all share together cum-bayh-yah.  But both seem to believe that we can have a nice version of BAU if we follow their path.  Complete nonsense of course (we can have a big discussion of why if you want - maybe).

Then you have the far left versions of going back to hunter-gatherer, wilding, permaculture (think cult here), raw food, no meat, no guns, am I forgetting a few.  .

And then you have the far right versions of free markets, glod, survival of the fittest, Feudal society structures, Fascism, etc.

A few make a little more sense such as Geer (I think he has serious flaws also though).

What will we get.  All of the above of course.  At least they will be attempted at some point. Such is certain as we have all of those opinions and everyone will try their favorite.  But, as they say; "Mother Nature does not negotiate."   One can make a rational argument that collapse is unavoidable no matter who's ideas are followed.  Some just lead to collapse sooner than others.  But we get there one way or the other.  Peak Oil, AGW. Financial collapse.  The End of Days (this actually already happened it just turned out that no one was chosen).  I tend to think the sooner the better as it leaves the survivors more resources to rebuild/recover.  But pick your poison.  The real question is what kind of collapse do we actually get.  That is an interesting discussion. 

Almost no one will discuss the core of the dilemma we are in.  The absolute core issue to deal with is over population.  There is no possible solution (barring the arrival of the aliens to save or eat us) to our situation that does not put population first.  And who can bring us to working on that?  Romney, Obama, you, me, who?  Bio-warfare anyone?   Nobody's solution works with 7-9 billion people and almost everyone's works with 1 billion people.   What fun.  No, what we are going to do is drift into chaos.

Well there is lots more to say but I have already violated my self-imposed limit on verbiage.  So I will just stop.

Wyo
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: WHD on August 11, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
Quote
So at the moment it appears to me that besides being DOOMED by everything surrounding me, I am DOOMING MYSELF at the same time, driving off the people I care about because I am just such a big fucking ASSHOLE!  A sad situation indeed, because I just AM this way, I can’t help but confront people all the time and I can’t help but keep writing about what I see as a very UGLY outcome for the Collapse of Industrial Civilization.

You may be an ASSHOLE, and you do have an ego BIGGER than the known universe, but you have a big heart too, bigger than most, even with and despite some of your EXTREME POV's. Something like a blogging savant, which few of us, even the most prolific of us, can maintain, or care to aspire to. I'm certainly thankful for the Diner, and it has become something like my go-to place for relevant info, not just what you present, but a half-dozen regular contributors here, who on the whole make this one of the truly most truly insightful websites on the internet. Thanks to you and thanks to all. 
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 11, 2012, 01:28:12 PM
Wyoming,
That was a fascinating and thoughtful comment. Thank you. I like to think I am not tied to any mindset but that of the one that explains physical reality and the direction that set of events is heading us towards. I resist the idea that I am in a "camp" because that tends to lock one in an endowment bias type of defense for a version of reality that may no longer fit actual reality. I am attracted to the DD general mindset, not because I want everything to go to hell or even survive the collapse. I simply believe I have weighed the events in the past, observed the events taking place in the present and extrapolated to the most probable future. As to the cause of global warming, I quoted the PetaWatts of solar energy slamming the earth every day and postulated that the fact that we are now insulating the earth's atmosphere is the main cause. It's not so much that the atmosphere is heating; it's that the solar radiation can't get out to the degree it used to. RE interprets this as "atmospheric heating". I see that as a side effect of solar radiation heating both the atmosphere and the oceanic heat sink. However, I admit that the possibility exists that undersea volcanoes and/or rift activity could increase the heatload. My bone of contention with RE's theory is that earthquake vibrations, regardless of their massive amount of energy content, do not convert to thermal energy but are mostly reabsorbed by the lithosphere. RE won't hear of it and that's fine with me. I am willing to admit both solar and core heat effects play a role (Murder on the Orient express model) as RE himself agrees might be the case. WHD and myself have made the point repeatedly that the oil pigs would love to embrace RE's theory so they could be left off the hook while RE counters that carbon credits are being made hay of by the man-caused global warming proponents. I don't agree because the carbon credits are not a serious attempt to go renewable; it's just corporate bullshit. A great example is Warren Buffett buying carbon credits so his Netjets executive jet fleet is "green". WTF!!?  And let's not forget how INTERESTED Gail was in RE's theory. She eat's that stuff up! This lady still believes nuclear power is renewable energy and "renewable energy" is a "marketing tool"! It's CLEAR what camp she is in. That is what WHD and myself are hollering about when we say RE's theory is considered a Christmas present by the fossil fuel pigs.
So, we go back and forth on this but we talk about it. I think we should because, regardless of how "locked in" any of us appear to be in a mindset, dialogue is better than everyone retreating to their corner. You saw how I was willing to take on RE, who has far more math background than I do, on the basic premise of his theory. I don't think RE wants an echo chamber here.

We should all argue a point because we think we are right, not because we think we can win the argument. As long as opinion is never defended as fact and vice versa, genuine communication can take place. However, as you pointed out, if a "debate" devolves into a contest of wills and the use of unethical debating tactics that dance around facts selectively to undermine the other party's position, then, SURE, I agree with you that there is no point whatsoever in engaging in that exercise in futility. At that point, humor, ridicule or an ad hominem or three  :icon_mrgreen: are all part of the fun! It's all part of being human. My experience with RE is that he wants to win but he doesn't resort to unethical debating tactics to do so. He can be strident but judging from the way he has handled subjects I have brought up that he totally disagrees with, he is willing to rationally discuss opposing views without resorting to dirty pool. That Josey Wales stuff just livens things up a bit. :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: WHD on August 11, 2012, 02:24:19 PM
Quote
When you make an extraordinary claim you have to have extraordinary evidence or you are talking nonsense.  When you dismiss scientific conclusions, arrived at by a couple of thousand PhD experts, which are based upon a vast pile of data and hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that are in almost total agreement, without providing data and peer reviewed research to back up your dismissal you are not working from a valid position.

Wyoming,

I recall RE did offer come data about increased volcanic activity. That is very suggestive, at least. There is also such a thing as orthodoxy. It is very hard to offer an alternative viewpoint no matter your evidence, once everyone is agreed it is X and there is no possibility of Y or Z, or A through W. I'm not saying RE is right, or that the global warming folk are wrong, I'm just saying I'm deeply suspicious of orthodoxy of any kind, scientific or otherwise.

Quote
Guy McPherson does write some interesting stuff but his extreme positions are not scientifically defensible and if you believe what he says you SHOULD party as long as you can, as there is no point in worrying about the future any longer.  He does more harm than good IMHO.

McPherson doesn't strike me as a scientist as much as a compiler of other people's science. So in effect, you seem to be saying that those scientists are not defensible, though they be many of the 98%.

Quote
A few make a little more sense such as Greer (I think he has serious flaws also though).

What flaws? I tend to think he is overly reliant on the historical record, and outright dismissive of the unprecedented complexity of the modern age, as reason for the possibility of epic industrial collapse unlike anything reported in the human condition.

Quote
Almost no one will discuss the core of the dilemma we are in.  The absolute core issue to deal with is over population.  There is no possible solution (barring the arrival of the aliens to save or eat us) to our situation that does not put population first.  And who can bring us to working on that?  Romney, Obama, you, me, who?  Bio-warfare anyone?   Nobody's solution works with 7-9 billion people and almost everyone's works with 1 billion people.   What fun.  No, what we are going to do is drift into chaos.

I wouldn't discount the earth taking care of that, with minimal need for help from humans, though in the coming chaos I have no doubt some among us will do their damnedest  :evil4: to help out in that regard, drifting into chaos as you are right, we are likely to do.




Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 11, 2012, 03:45:45 PM
RE,
Great article! I got a great laugh from this:
Quote
Tao Zen Masters who are sure the problem is related to the fact nobody grasps the Meaning of Koans and are just too SLOW to Snatch the Pebble from the Grasshopper’s Hand

This is the kind of grasshopper I like to be around. :icon_mrgreen:
Kung Fu - grasshopper dialog (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo#ws)

After reading it, I have to add that, metaphysical POVs that cannot be proved or disproved empirically aside for a moment, in THIS PART of the multiverse there is only ONE reality, not several. IF facts can always be discerned from opinion and vice versa, humans could achieve a consensus on

A) Agreement on whether we have a biosphere problem or not.

B) Defining the problem.

C) Outlining the best course of action to solve the problem including a "conflict of interest prejudice" jaundiced eye on all the parties engaged in researching the data and proposing the solutions.

The main stumbling block in solving problems in human affairs now  is not that we HAVE difficult problems due to our big brains, obsessive tool making and industrialization; it's game theory in argumentation and defense of sacred cows which embrace every unethical piece of verbal dancing born of slick lawyer sophistry to score a "win" regardless of whether that "win" has anything whatsover to do with reality or truth. This relativistic BULLSHIT is eating us alive. And that's just the way TPTB want it because, as Dr. Phil says, they are "getting something out of it". Myself and many Doomstead Diners I think they are suicidally stupid so we try to get the simple message across hat, "Hey, this ain't workin'! Stop that shit for Homo sapiens' sake.". I reject the idea that I came to this mindset because of my personality type or general mindset. Myself and many DD members came to these views through empirical observation. I also reject the opinion that a POV isn't "valid" unless it is peer reviewed. Pasteur and Lister were told they were full of shit by their peers. Now, with piggy corporations being the main funders of scientists and their research, you have to throw critical thinking to the wind to seriously believe they aren't slanting a lot of the data (as bad as even they admit it is) to make the mountain look like a molehill. Modern science certainly provides a lot of good data but peer review is no guarantee of accuracy when a lot of corporate profits are at stake. That is why I take seriously your geotectonic theory even though I don't agree with it. You are seeking the TRUTH as we all should be. If I learned you were funded by the Exxon oil pig, I would reject it outright. Come clean, RE! Full disclosure or it's twenty lashes with a wet noodle for you! :icon_mrgreen:

There will never be a consensus, even if the world is obviously going to hell in a hand basket, until TRUTH is IN and GAME THEORY SOPHISTRY is OUT. Nature does not DO "I'm okay, you're okay".
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 04:06:38 PM
Ok RE, I'll bite.

And a nice BIG bite it was there WY!

To get things rolling, you Hammer on BOTH Guy and me.  One of your critiques of me is that I haven't done "rigorous" enough research, yet you don't present anything at all to counter either my theory or Guy's theory.

Do you dispute DLindquist's graphs showing the marked increase in frequency and magnitude of earthquakes over the last 20 years?  If you don't dispute those graphs, where do you think the energy went?  Do you postulate like AB does that it is "reabsorbed" into the lithosphere?  I doubt this, when energy is released from mechanical stress, it comes out as Heat.  For instance, if an Asteroid crashed into the earth, the kinetic energy of impact would be converted to heat.

I agree with AB that the changing gas mix in the atmosphere can prevent Heat from escaping and that could and probably does contribute to the atmospheric warming.  It does not explain how the atmosphere which has both a much lower mass and lower heat capacity than the Oceans manages to raise their Heat content by an order of magnitude, especially when average atmospheric temperature has only increased by 1-2 degrees.

Insofar as Guy's Uber Doom prediction, you dismiss that one as Looney Tunes without really providing any contrary evidence either.  The pH of the Oceans IS on a very steady downward track, which if you extrapolate out just 30 or so years into the future would make it impossible for the calcification of shells to take place.  Destruction of the Coral Reefs would take out the breeding grounds of many if not most salt water fish.  This in addition to the loss of land based food supply due to drought and soil depletion would knock down 99.99% of the human population for sure.  However, it is not clear that the phytoplankton would collapse at that pH, they don't depend on shell calcification and being tiny organisms present in quantities in the trillions if not quadrillions, they probably can adapt quickly to increased acidity...to a point.   The question is how long this acidification will go on here, and I don;t think anyone can really answer that question definitively.

(http://www.sciencebuzz.org/sites/default/files/images/OA_Graph_small.preview.jpg)

Now, onto the article at hand, which you mostly do agree with. :)

Quote
Most extreme positions are unsupportable if one introduces facts or science into the discussion.

Here is another statement you make with no support at all.  The Extreme Position that the Ocean Acidification will lead to a collapse of the Phytoplankton annd an extinction level event IS supportable by facts, I just did that.  To rebut this, you now have to show why that conclusion isn't supportable by facts.  Feel free to jump in with your facts at any time.

Quote
The only blog I ever found that provided a good platform for discussing the problems we have and potential solutions was The Oil Drum in its first incarnation (not anywhere near as good any more).  I would like to find another and am always searching.

Peak Oil was pretty good for a while also, but the Bannings and the Power Plays of the Mods pretty much killed it.  I'm trying to avoid that Pitfall with the No Censorship, No Ban policy.  The Commentariat here is full of pretty bright folks so far, so Quality wise I think we are doing well.  However, on the grand scale we are still very small potatoes and need more folks with a greater breadth of expertiese in here participating.  Hopefully things go that way over time.

Quote
There are lots of bad versions of doomerism out there.  Guy McPherson does write some interesting stuff but his extreme positions are not scientifically defensible and if you believe what he says you SHOULD party as long as you can, as there is no point in worrying about the future any longer.  He does more harm than good IMHO.

So far Guy hasn't jumped into the Diner Pool to defend his material, perhaps he will with this one, dunno.

I do agree though if it is completely HOPELESS conservation and all the rest are a complete waste of time.  Until the phytoplankton actually DO collapse and we all start having trouble breathing and the Illuminati are Partying in the Hamptons with Bottled Oxygen tanks on their backs, I'll Keep the Hopium Alive.


 
Quote
I used to read TAE but never go there any more (A is a wack job).  Zero-Hedge occasionally.  Tyler?  Denninger?  Off their rockers half the time.  The trouble is that they all have fatal flaws that detract so much from the value they have. Religious fervor at the expense of rational thought, "free market capitalism" as a religion (what better way to destroy the earth?), Glod bugs, racists, survivalists (who clearly know next to nothing about anything but weapons).

I pretty much have stopped following those same websites much, though not for the same reasons.  Mainly, I find so much of what they write now to be repetitive.  Zero Hedge still breaks a lot of Market based stories first though so I do scan the Headlines there every day.

Quote
What will we get.  All of the above of course.  At least they will be attempted at some point.

I don't think we will get all of them, since some of them are mutually exclusive outcomes.  For instance, if the neo-Amish 18th Century Ag model actually WORKS, you won't see H-Gs staging a real comeback.  We could of course go through a period or trial and failure on various of these methodolgies though, gradually Reverse Engineering back down the ladder.  For most people though, even the idea we will be living without electric lights, Carz and Cell Phones is too hefty a Doom message.

Quote
Such is certain as we have all of those opinions and everyone will try their favorite.  But, as they say; "Mother Nature does not negotiate."   One can make a rational argument that collapse is unavoidable no matter who's ideas are followed.  Some just lead to collapse sooner than others.  But we get there one way or the other.  Peak Oil, AGW. Financial collapse.  The End of Days (this actually already happened it just turned out that no one was chosen).  I tend to think the sooner the better as it leaves the survivors more resources to rebuild/recover.  But pick your poison.  The real question is what kind of collapse do we actually get.  That is an interesting discussion. 

The End of Days has happenned for some so far, not for others yet.  In the places where it is furthest along, the type of collapse in the first stage is pretty clear, it is War.  This is likely to expand greatly over time here.

The Famine problem looks to be the next Horseman riding in here at the moment, and this will make conditions in the 3rd world even tougher as they are priced out of the food market and the food aid stops flowing in.  It's easily conceivable if the harvest problems continue and are global through the northern hemisphere this season that 3rd world Famine will be DIRE in the following year as the silos are emptied.

Quote
Almost no one will discuss the core of the dilemma we are in.  The absolute core issue to deal with is over population.  There is no possible solution (barring the arrival of the aliens to save or eat us) to our situation that does not put population first.  And who can bring us to working on that?  Romney, Obama, you, me, who?  Bio-warfare anyone?   Nobody's solution works with 7-9 billion people and almost everyone's works with 1 billion people.   What fun.  No, what we are going to do is drift into chaos.

We discuss this Core Dilemma all the time on the Diner!  In the end here, it appears the traditional Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will Ride Herd over Humanity, as they have done so many times before.  Though this time it appears they will have to take a good deal more than a 1/4 part of the Herd with them to the Great Beyond.  Main question in my mind remains exactly how long this will take to play itself out, and when will the various systems like the power grid begin to crash in earnest?

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WebnIkMGTz8/S66IEBMLHSI/AAAAAAAABxg/mxm7vHsFKog/s1600/the-four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse-e1261247861423.jpg)

Can the Earth support even 1B people once these systems collapse?  That seems unlikely.  Max population before Industrialization was around 500-600M before regular Plagues and Famines knocked down the population.  This was before much of the Earth surface was polluted and paved over, and before Climate Change was ongoing in earnest.  I think best case scenario maybe the Earth will support 100M people in its current sickly condition, and that is being generous.

Time will tell.  Until the Fat Lady Sings, all we can do is figure out the best means to make it through the Zero Point, wherever we are or wherever we can get to when TSHTF in the Bugout Machine.  That is what we are here on the Diner trying to hash out.  Glad to have you aboard with us WY.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 04:26:03 PM

You may be an ASSHOLE, and you do have an ego BIGGER than the known universe, but you have a big heart too, bigger than most, even with and despite some of your EXTREME POV's. Something like a blogging savant, which few of us, even the most prolific of us, can maintain, or care to aspire to. I'm certainly thankful for the Diner, and it has become something like my go-to place for relevant info, not just what you present, but a half-dozen regular contributors here, who on the whole make this one of the truly most truly insightful websites on the internet. Thanks to you and thanks to all.

Nice Testimonial WHD!  I'll have to make this a "Quote of the Month"  LOL.

To return the compliment, consider yourself one of the half dozen regular contributors who make the Diner...wait for it....

#1 for DOOM on the Net!

RE, "Blogger Savant"  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 05:01:16 PM
agelbert

Well you are a better man than me if you have managed to avoid being tied to a mind set.  I know that I am and am not sure that I have ever met anyone who isn't.  It does pay to learn what motivates and guides those one has to deal with when it is possible.

I am not aware of any scientists publishing research on AGW who are beholden to industry.  They exclusively work for academia or government entities as far as I know.  Excepting some of the 1-2% ers of course. 

Peer review is not perfect but it works well.  You'll notice that the 1-2% ers don't partake of it.  Kind of tells you something.  They do not survive the process because they misuse data, statistics, math and the laws of physics.  They get called out.  Best to avoid that situation.  Peer review works well because there are literally hundreds of young folks in PhD programs that would love to prove the big guys wrong and make a reputation for themselves.  Real science is a contact sport that takes no prisoners.  You better be right and able to back it up or you are going to be called stupid in no time.

WHD

A few points.

AGW is certainly not scientific orthodoxy.  It is more analogous to Special Relativity about 20 years after Einstein came up with it.  It is new in scientific terms and has proven to be extremely significant.  Acceptance of the science is civilization changing, lifestyle changing.  Such things are not easily accepted.  They entail too much pain or giving up a lifestyle that, however vested one may be in it, is no longer viable.

Guy McPherson is both interpreting and quoting other peoples works.  His recent We're Done article is a perfect example.  I went through all the links and ref's he provided.  None of his bold statements were justified and some were just wrong due to not actually reading what was written or deliberately misquoting.  The people who wrote the 'studies' (not peer reviewed) are certainly not part of the 98%.  They are interested amateurs perhaps or possibly motivated advocates of change.  It is not just Deniers who are active anymore. There are also folks distorting data and exaggerating in order to try and get people to change by scaring them.  This is quite possibly Guy's unspoken motivation.

On population I have no doubt that we will do it the hard way.  It is in our nature I think.  But, technically, we could actually draw population down quickly without resorting to the 4 horsemen if we chose to.  Technically not practically.  This is sort of the same type of technical possibility that will not happen if you refer to some of those solutions proposed by the left-wing cornucopian's (I am thinking of the Wedges approach here).   Possible but not going to happen because they require a global change in human nature.

Wyo

WY, I am going to move this post over to the Guy McPherson thread.  Crtiques of his stuff should go there.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: Wyoming on August 11, 2012, 05:45:10 PM
RE,

Well I guess I asked for a giant response as I wrote such a long one myself. 

You misunderstand my point on your warming theory.  The scientific consensus on AGW exists because there are physical descriptions of what should happen in place.  Starting over a 100 years ago various physicists described what should/would happen should greenhouse gases be increased.  Since then there has been a giant volume of data collected, thousands of reports reviewed and published, computer climate models created that verify past climates using inputted real data.  What has been done fits perfectly in all major respects, satisfys the theory and there is no known data being collected which is not properly accounted for.  This is as good as it gets.

Extraordinary claims.  Yours is such because it claims that the above is incorrect.  To be taken seriously one has to start stepping through the process above until your theory explains the data better and proves why they (all of them) have made a mistake.  This is what science does at times and strongly held theories in the past have been proven later to be mistaken.  After all, in a strict sense, Newton got it all wrong you know.  So you have to provide the extraordinary proof.  If you are truly a genius (could well be as you are obviously smart) and have out thought some of the brightest people on the planet you owe it too us all to follow through on it.  Arguing with me about the science won't get us anywhere.  You need to bring it up with Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al.  Write it up and send it into Nature or one of the major publications and ask to have Hansen and Schmidt put on the peer review list.  If it passes muster you have come up with a valid idea and research dollars will  flow towards proving you right or wrong.  The above sounds a lot like a nasty snark but it is not.  This is the way it works.  If you are convinced you have an important point you owe it to yourself to push it up the ladder, and the rest of us will truly appreciate a validated new idea that could make an important difference in a critical debate.  If it does not pan out or someone else has already thought of this and it did not pass muster there is no harm done.

I don't recall bringing up ocean acidification (actually I didn't) but it was a long post and I forget what I do sometimes.  This is, of course, solid science at this point and we are in real trouble on that point.  You are certainly correct.  The more CO2 we emit the worse the situation will be.  And it is one that takes millennia to reverse.  This is, of course, part of that peer reviewed stuff I mentioned up above.

My comment on extreme positions was more related to what gets one banned on many of the blogs.  When Tyler or Denniger goes off reservation the last thing that you want to bring to the discussion with them are facts.  Their response tends to be along the lines of; "You want facts!  I'll give you your facts!"  and you are gone.

Maybe we will not try all possible solutions, but it is a big world and will get a lot bigger.  Washington will not be dictating what goes on everywhere in the good ole USA forever (it would be fun to ask you sometime in the future what you think of Queen Sara the 1st and her Consort).  It will be more chaotic elsewhere and who knows what they will do.  Some places post collapse are only suitable for H-G and pre-industrial ag is good in others.  Some places will be abandoned. Phoenix anyone?

I do agree that those of us who live long enough are likely to become much better acquainted with the Horsemen.  Famine and Pestilence perhaps are the early acts.  We are just practicing for War now, nothing serious yet.

Yes I know that you discuss the population issue here.  That is how I first found you.  If I remember correctly Ashvin was screaming at someone.

As I some time ago came to the conclusion that collapse was unavoidable my main interest is in gauging the likely timing and scope.  I have this idea that gauging it has value.  Silly.  I know that others working for the 1%ers, the intell community and defense are hot on it.  For all the money being poured into the Denial camp I am certain that all bets are being hedged.  Not everyone will make it through a bottleneck and it is best to figure out how to manage the process as best one can.  I have no doubt that this is not going to sneak up on them any more than it will sneak up on us.  Do you want to bet against the claim that a much larger percentage of the 1%ers are going to survive what is coming than of the 99%?

Wyo
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: Wyoming on August 11, 2012, 05:51:27 PM
RE,

Guy has already read a much more detailed critique from me on the We're Done post of his.  I replied on his blog just after he posted it.  Got a lot of grief from his regular commenters.  Fancy that!

Perhaps you could leave the part that was for aglebert and WHD sop they can see it.

Wyo
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 07:07:11 PM
I always try to honor a long and well-considered comment with one of similar length.  :icon_mrgreen:  I am NOT a Blogger who is bothered by long comments from the commentariat, even if they are contrarian to my own opinions.  In fact these are what I like the MOST.  They are thought provoking.

Starting over a 100 years ago various physicists described what should/would happen should greenhouse gases be increased.

I really have no argument with models which show Greenhouse Warming resultant from chanigng gas mixture in the atomsphere.  This is very plausible, even likely.

The assumption is made however that the primary source of the Gases is from Fossil Fuel burning, which also may be true, although clathrates melting and increased vulcanism jack a lot of these gases into the atmosphere also.

The problem with AGW is it is a classic case of making a theory fit assumptions.  At the level of the Atmosphere, I really have no problem with AGW.  On its own it probably can cause Climate Changes as various tipping points are hit.  It is at the level of the Oceans that AGW doesn't have a good explanation because it really cannot account for that much Energy Transfer from Atmosphere into Ocean.  It's going in the wrong direction.

Quote
  What has been done fits perfectly in all major respects, satisfys the theory and there is no known data being collected which is not properly accounted for.

I've never seen anything which accounts for the Ocean Heat Content rise of this magnitude, can you point me to the source you are referring to for this?  All the models I have seen account for Atmospheric Changes, not Ocean changes.

Quote
Extraordinary claims.  Yours is such because it claims that the above is incorrect.

Again, it is not so much Incorrect as it is Incomplete.

Quote
To be taken seriously one has to start stepping through the process above until your theory explains the data better and proves why they (all of them) have made a mistake.  This is what science does at times and strongly held theories in the past have been proven later to be mistaken.  After all, in a strict sense, Newton got it all wrong you know.  So you have to provide the extraordinary proof.  If you are truly a genius (could well be as you are obviously smart) and have out thought some of the brightest people on the planet you owe it too us all to follow through on it.  Arguing with me about the science won't get us anywhere.  You need to bring it up with Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, et al.  Write it up and send it into Nature or one of the major publications and ask to have Hansen and Schmidt put on the peer review list.  If it passes muster you have come up with a valid idea and research dollars will  flow towards proving you right or wrong.  The above sounds a lot like a nasty snark but it is not.  This is the way it works.  If you are convinced you have an important point you owe it to yourself to push it up the ladder, and the rest of us will truly appreciate a validated new idea that could make an important difference in a critical debate.  If it does not pan out or someone else has already thought of this and it did not pass muster there is no harm done.

I left the world of Academia more than 30 years ago.  Friends of mine like Eric Lander and Francis Barany continued on with it.  I doubt if I sent in an article it would ever even make it to the desk of Hansen or Schmidt.  Some low level editor would read it and it would go straight into the Wastebasket.

Besides that, it would compromise my Anonymity to do that.  They don't accept Academic Papers from Anons you know. LOL.  I finally made my escape from the Shrinks testing me for my IQ, I don't need that insanity again in my life.  Hopefully some Grad student at MIT will read this stuff and go off with it and win the Nobel Prize.  I'm willing to discuss it with anybody.  It's up on the net for anyone to read, and I will answer best I can any arguments against the theory.  It is UP for "Peer Review" from the entire scientific community, and I do go out and Plug it on other websites where scientists hang out, like Peak Oil.  Plenty of Rock Docs there.

Anyhow, AGW more or less has a lock on the Group Think here, and I doubt this ever gets much traction, even with a Publication in Nature.  In the end, whatever the underlying Causation is, at this point we can't do much about it either way.  We won't turn down the Burners up here on the surface too soon, at least not until all the Big Hardware is down at the bottom of Davey Jones Locker.  Mother Earth will do what she will do, and not even HAARP can counter that kind of power.

In both cases, all we can do is HOPE that the pH Downslope levels out here sometime soon.  The direction it is headed at the moment, if you are not a Tardigrade, you are TOAST.  Or at least your Children will be toast.

Quote
My comment on extreme positions was more related to what gets one banned on many of the blogs.  When Tyler or Denniger goes off reservation the last thing that you want to bring to the discussion with them are facts.  Their response tends to be along the lines of; "You want facts!  I'll give you your facts!"  and you are gone.

Know that one from personal experience with Karl.  :icon_mrgreen:  I challenged him one too many times on the merits of Capitalism, and down came the Guillotine. LOL.

Quote
As I some time ago came to the conclusion that collapse was unavoidable my main interest is in gauging the likely timing and scope.  I have this idea that gauging it has value.  Silly.  I know that others working for the 1%ers, the intell community and defense are hot on it.  For all the money being poured into the Denial camp I am certain that all bets are being hedged.  Not everyone will make it through a bottleneck and it is best to figure out how to manage the process as best one can.  I have no doubt that this is not going to sneak up on them any more than it will sneak up on us.  Do you want to bet against the claim that a much larger percentage of the 1%ers are going to survive what is coming than of the 99%?

The timeline remains the most critical question, because that impacts on the choices you make right now.  If it is a Fast Crash, you need to GTFO of Dodge NOW.  If it's a Long Emergency, if you are still making MONEY inside the system, it may be better to keep going with it a while longer to better Prep Up.  This is a critical dilemma for most people currently aware of the problems.

Do I think the 1% will fare better by Percentage?  That mainly depends on how much Rope is available.  I do know the 1% did NOT do too well by percentage when Robespierre rode into town, nor did they do to well in 7 Days of May in 1917, nor did they do too well when Mao got Rolling on the Purges either.  So far though, the .01% has mostly managed to remain mostly unscathed.  This one is different though.  Nowhere for Capital to go run and hide anymore.  The Capital is in fact all gone, and all the .01% hold now is a lot of Irredeemable Debt.  They will eat each other up, Cannibalism at the very Top.  So overall, I don't think their chances are much better than J6P these days, although in the near term they will be Partying Hearty in the Hamptons for sure.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
RE,

Guy has already read a much more detailed critique from me on the We're Done post of his.  I replied on his blog just after he posted it.  Got a lot of grief from his regular commenters.  Fancy that!

No surprise there.  So far, Guy only Plays on his Homefield where the Crowd is Cheering for him.  Perhaps this time he comes out for an Away Game.  We'll see.

Quote
Perhaps you could leave the part that was for aglebert and WHD sop they can see it.

Both AB and WHD are Mod Squadders here, they know how the system works.  They won't miss your post.  Besides, I did leave up a Full Quote of the post in my response to it where I said I was moving it.  Shouldn't be hard for anyone to find.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 11, 2012, 09:17:00 PM
RE,
Quote
I agree with AB that the changing gas mix in the atmosphere can prevent Heat from escaping and that could and probably does contribute to the atmospheric warming. It does not explain how the atmosphere which has both a much lower mass and lower heat capacity than the Oceans manages to raise their Heat content by an order of magnitude, especially when average atmospheric temperature has only increased by 1-2 degrees.
I agree and I delieve the explanation is not from conduction of atmospheric heat to the ocean. I never believed that. The photon PetaWatts incoming from the sun, as you well know, are not converted into heat until they hit something. The first thing they hit is the atmosphere which is peanuts compared to the ocean as a photon barrier. The atmosphere, because it has decreased O3 or however you want to chemically express the Ozone dance up there (which lowers photon frequency and used to keep a lot more of that heat away from earth by radiating it back into space as well as lowering our UV exposure) has been severely weakened by human industrialization. So now more photons are coming in with higher energy signatures. We've got increased CO2 but that is in parts per million! That isn't slowing the photons down much despite the fact that it does cause some atmospheric warming. Most of those photons with a higher energy signature slam into the ocean and the land and instantly turn into heat if they are not reflected properly. The reflected photons have a lower energy signature of which a lot is IR. The photon heat transfer into the ocean is absorbed by the high specific heat ocean water which is then very slow to release it for the same "high specific heat" reason. Meanwhile the CO2 NOW comes into real play because the low energy IR is trapped by it and accelerates atmospheric warming as it bounces up and down until it peters out. So let me make myself clear. The high energy photons, not the atmosphere, is what is warming the oceans (just look at the heat transfer of photon energies of full spectrum light on H2O and you will see what I mean - specific heat is not going to prevent photon heat absorption). The oceans are giving up some of the heat they get into the atmosphere at night. The ocean supplied heat coupled with the low energy IR that bounces around the newly insulated atmosphere are what is heating the atmosphere (this, of course doesn't even count internal combustion engine heat that nobody wants to talk about). I always claimed it was the sun, not the atmosphere, that is heating the oceans. The acidification is a side phenomenon unrealted to the heat trapped in the atmosphere but to the interaction of increased CO2 with the oceans. If, for example, we had such a hot core that the average Earth surface temperature (oceans included) was 100oF (it is now about 70o) without ice caps and only 150 ppm of CO2, the water vapor in the atmosphere would heat the atmosphere just as much or more without the ocean acidification phenomenon. In that case solar radiation would probably barely make it to the oceans because water vapor's high specific heat physical property would cause most of the solar energy to be absorbed. The atmosphere would be a steamy hell and no ice age would come because, regardless of the fact that the solar radiation wasn't making to the surface, the core heated surface and the atmospheric water vapor's specific heat would prevent it. That MAY be in our future but I believe that was part of an ancient earth.

Wyoming,
I've written an article that I gave to RE recently that addresses the global human population and how it relates to carbon footprint. I point out that ants have a higher biomass than humans but they don't have a carbon footprint problem. If the problem we have is carbon footprint, then we need to look at who has the biggest footprint, rather than viewing this issue with such a scattergun approach as radical population reduction. What makes you think that will solve the problem? Do you think 500 million humans are going to give up mining, heavy industry, corporate jets, huge militaries and so on after they got rid of 6.5 billion? RE will let you know when it is published.

As to scientific peer review being a contact sport where only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth gets through and they are the final arbiter of what is, or is not, true, I disagree. There is every bit as much politics, statistical population gaming and all sorts of assorted tricks out there to obtain grant money and "sing for the reagents and instrumentation supper" as there is in any petty corporate bureaucracy involved with budget fights. Scientists simply do not have the money for the instrumentation they need to do good science. Those that provide that money get the truth and then gag the scientists involved in the study with nondisclosure agreements.  A sanitized version that doesn't step on corporate toes is what makes it to the public. I know of several of examples of how the game is rigged to shitcan truth from the FDA drug trial protocols that lock out any new drug that can't pay 4 million dollars to stifle natural medicine for big pharma to the very same FDA ramrodding dangerous drugs for big pharma to ACTUAL rocket science. Believing in the purity, integrity and credibility of the modern scientific community is tantamount to religious faith. I wish it weren't so. I suggest you google scientific investigation scandals, fraud, plagiarized doctoral thesis, corporate funding percentages in universities and military funding as well. Finally, I wish to add that your faith in the good will of the scientific community does not reflect its history in the late 19th and all of the 20th century. It's uncomfortable to accept that but, if you do the research (I'm not talking tinfoil stuff either), your faith won't simply be shaken, you will find that the overwhelming majority of scientific breaktroughs has come in spite of peer review, not because of it. The top is ossified. The history proves that the ideas for innovation have come from amateurs, not the high priesthood. I do not share your faith.
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 11, 2012, 10:02:39 PM
RE,
Quote
I agree with AB that the changing gas mix in the atmosphere can prevent Heat from escaping and that could and probably does contribute to the atmospheric warming. It does not explain how the atmosphere which has both a much lower mass and lower heat capacity than the Oceans manages to raise their Heat content by an order of magnitude, especially when average atmospheric temperature has only increased by 1-2 degrees.
I agree and I delieve the explanation is not from conduction of atmospheric heat to the ocean. I never believed that. The photon PetaWatts incoming from the sun, as you well know, are not converted into heat until they hit something. The first thing they hit is the atmosphere which is peanuts compared to the ocean as a photon barrier. The atmosphere, because it has decreased O3 or however you want to chemically express the Ozone dance up there (which lowers photon frequency and used to keep a lot more of that heat away from earth by radiating it back into space as well as lowering our UV exposure) has been severely weakened by human industrialization. So now more photons are coming in with higher energy signatures. We've got increased CO2 but that is in parts per million! That isn't slowing the photons down much despite the fact that it does cause some atmospheric warming. Most of those photons with a higher energy signature slam into the ocean and the land and instantly turn into heat if they are not reflected properly. The reflected photons have a lower energy signature of which a lot is IR. The photon heat transfer into the ocean is absorbed by the high specific heat ocean water which is then very slow to release it for the same "high specific heat" reason. Meanwhile the CO2 NOW comes into real play because the low energy IR is trapped by it and accelerates atmospheric warming as it bounces up and down until it peters out. So let me make myself clear. The high energy photons, not the atmosphere, is what is warming the oceans (just look at the heat transfer of photon energies of full spectrum light on H2O and you will see what I mean - specific heat is not going to prevent photon heat absorption). The oceans are giving up some of the heat they get into the atmosphere at night. The ocean supplied heat coupled with the low energy IR that bounces around the newly insulated atmosphere are what is heating the atmosphere (this, of course doesn't even count internal combustion engine heat that nobody wants to talk about). I always claimed it was the sun, not the atmosphere, that is heating the oceans. The acidification is a side phenomenon unrealted to the heat trapped in the atmosphere but to the interaction of increased CO2 with the oceans. If, for example, we had such a hot core that the average Earth surface temperature (oceans included) was 100oF (it is now about 70o) without ice caps and only 150 ppm of CO2, the water vapor in the atmosphere would heat the atmosphere just as much or more without the ocean acidification phenomenon. In that case solar radiation would probably barely make it to the oceans because water vapor's high specific heat physical property would cause most of the solar energy to be absorbed. The atmosphere would be a steamy hell and no ice age would come because, regardless of the fact that the solar radiation wasn't making to the surface, the core heated surface and the atmospheric water vapor's specific heat would prevent it. That MAY be in our future but I believe that was part of an ancient earth.

IMHO, that is a farily convoluted theory overall.

The total number of photons of any energy impacting the earth has not changed THAT much, and in fact the Sun is producing less of them lately than in the past.  If it was direct conduction from photnic energy, with all the various gases in the atmosphere that could absorb such energy, their Temperature would have to rise ExTREMELY, eveniffewofthem are hitby the photons. You cannot heat up the Oceans to this extent without simultaneously heating the atmosphere to a MUCH larger extent on a Temperature level,simply because the heat Capacity of the atmospher is so much LESS than the Ocean.  That much energy coming from ABOVE would COOK the atmosphere in NO TIME, and that is not occurring.  EvenTrapped and Bouncing around ther adiation in various forms could only maybe change total absorption by double, and again, that would change the Temp of the Atmosphere MUCH more than the Oceans because of the lower Heat Capacity.  Any number of Photons reflecting off the Ocean surface that could Raise its temp by 1 Degree would haveenough energy to raise atmospheric Temp by 1000 degrees.  The atmospheresimply has no ability to handle so much energy without a massive Temp rise, because it does not have the Heat Capacity the Oceans do.

This HAS to come from the Bottom UP, not the Top DOWN.  Any theory which uses photonic emissons as the Energy source has to account for the fact that as they pass through the atmosphere, they would Heat It Up, to MUCH greater degree than they heat the Oceans.  You cannot escape that fact of life.  Only if the Heat comes from the Bottom UP can you explain such a massive increase in Ocean Heat Content while the Atmospheric Temp Rise remains relatively small.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 11, 2012, 11:46:43 PM
Quote
You cannot heat up the Oceans to this extent without simultaneously heating the atmosphere to a MUCH larger extent on a Temperature level,simply because the heat Capacity of the atmosphere is so much LESS than the Ocean.
Think about that. The atmosphere is a much less dense medium, the ocean is a massive heat sink and is not real happy about giving up that heat to the atmosphere because of it's specific heat physical property. The atmosphere, on the other hand, is a lousy heat sink. It's very happy to give off heat IF it can radiate it out to space. I agree that the atmosphere is NOT heating the oceans. I remember when I studied SCUBA diving how we were told the onshore and offshore breezes on beaches were controlled mostly by the time of day. In the morning the land would heat up quick but the water at 9:00 A:M or so was quite cool in comparison so the land rising thermals would cause the wind to blow from the sea onto the land. Around sunset the breeze dies and the land begins to cool quickly so the breeze blows towards the sea and you get more bug bites.
Quote
The sea has a greater heat capacity than land and can therefore absorb more heat than the land, so the surface of the sea warms up more slowly than the land's surface.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_breeze)

Surely you don't believe the photons are losing most of their energy to the atmosphere before they hit the ocean and land. RE, it's not the atmosphere that causes heat differentials in onshore and offshore winds; it's the photon energy  converted to HEAT when the photons smack the land and the sea that does the trick. The atmosphere is then heated by them both. It is just bad physics to say photon energies in the light spectrum are being overwhelmingly absorbed by the atmosphere. It's not convoluted, RE, it's weather. Prior to the high CO2 levels we have today, the IR heat from low energy photon signatures bouncing off the land and earth was exiting the earth with greater ease. The day, night rhythm of photon on/off impact on the oceans combined with the fact that our ozone layer kept more UV from getting to the oceans in the first place, was enough to avoid global warming. Now we have insulation and the greenhouse. Now it will run away because it will build up steadily. Four hundred ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and all the other atmospheric gases below the ozone layer DO NOT convert UV to IR; both the land and the oceans do that but since the Earth is two thirds covered with water, that UV is going mostly into that water (and staying there longer than on land because of water's specific heat) and the IR is going into the air. They didn't invent sunblock because of IR caused sunburns. The human body is mostly water. When the UV smacks us, it turns into heat that causes cancer. Some of it is reflected away as IR but the main energy is deposited in  our watery tissues in the form of burning heat.

Don't believe a word I say. Just perform this experiment:
Take a  square foot of thin plate glass and put a super thin layer of the weakest strength sunblock you have on to it. Take an identical piece of glass and put it over a measured amount of water in a pot with unheated and unlit sides. Put the glass with sunblock over a duplicate of the first pot with the same amount of water (give the water the same Na Cl concentration as the ocean if you want to be more realistic). After ensuring the water temperature is identical in both pots, put them out in the sun and measure and record the water and the air temperature in each pot each hour for at least 4 hours (a 24 hour period would be best). The glass should not have a perfect seal but should restrict heat exchange from outside air as much as possible for realism (the pots should be shielded from wind).

If your hypothesis is correct, the water temperature in both pots will not vary significantly because the atmosphere is the one being heated by the incoming photons and, because of water's specific heat, the less dense medium of the air cannot affect the water temperature. If my hypothesis is correct, the reduced UV barrier (no sunblock) will get you a significant water temperature increase from photon energy exchange even though the photons hitting the pots have gone through most of the Earth's atmosphere before hitting the glass or the water. Notice I am have not mentioned CO2  but our atmosphere is at nearly 400ppm so the air in your pots reflects present reality.

During this experiment, ensure that the pot sides and bottom are not being heated so as to simulate a lack of core heat.

What have you got to lose?
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 12, 2012, 12:17:12 AM

Surely you don't believe the photons are losing most of their energy to the atmosphere before they hit the ocean and land. RE, it's not the atmosphere that causes heat differentials in onshore and offshore winds; it's the photon energy  converted to HEAT when the photons smack the land and the sea that does the trick.

Actually I do buy the idea that any radiated Energy of the Sun passing through the Atmosphere is going to imcrease Temperature in any molecule it contacts.  They won't lose MOST of their energy this way, because since Gaseous Molecules are spread thinly, not many get hit.  Nevertheless, those that DO Get Hit would have  to rise in Heat a LOT. Low Heat Capacity of course.

No model I am aware of allows for high energy to pass through a Gas without Heating it up.  If it is enough to heat up the Oceans to  a full order of magnitude above what they were 20 years ago, the atmospheric consequences would be far greater than they are Toomuch Heat capacity difference. .Its NOT  coming from the Top Down AB.  It is coming from the Bottom UP.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 12, 2012, 12:40:49 AM
Sorry RE, you can't have it both ways. The atmosphere is a lousy heat sink. The distance between the molecules is VAST compared with the distance between the molecules in water. I've GOT you there, bro!

You know UV makes it to the surface, despite all those gaseous molecules that happen to get sideswiped on the way down. I'm going to do some research on photon energy gradients according to their position above the planet from just before they strike the upper atmosphere all the way down and get back to you. About a year ago I did some research on photon energies from radionuclides and those fuckers can really put out some tissue destroying photon energy because (alpha and beta particles aside) gamma ray photons do not all just pass through tissue; they compton scatter and scatter all the way down the energy spectrum to IR. On the way they smash a lot of enzyme clockwork and DNA but that's another subject. I say this to you so you will know I didn't just get off the boat as far as an understanding of the VERY different energy signatures of photons in the full spectrum of sunlight.

I'll get back to you. All I ask is that you preserve your objectivity. :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 12, 2012, 01:31:57 AM

I'll get back to you. All I ask is that you preserve your objectivity. :icon_mrgreen:


I will remain Objective on this question.  However, radiation of any sort distributes uniformly, so passing through the atmosphere without substantially increasing the energy of gaseous molecules on the way down seem unlikely to me.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: roamer on August 12, 2012, 07:28:45 AM
RE,
In this article you wonder where some of the doomers drift off too.  Speaking for myself I simply found that the amount of info to keep up on here exceeds what my day to day time allowances are.  Additionally no one around me friends ect ever wants to talk about this stuff, so it is a solo hobby of mine and as such gets dull and just distances me from anyone around me.   For a while I was "in between" jobs and doom was addictively fun, now I find it is something that I have to be much more careful about as I need to save what little brain processing power I have for my vocation.

I can say though that I feel I've hedged my bets as well as possible based on the doom i've read and as a positive result am able to go about my life with much less anxiety.  I've prepared in the face of uncertainty as well as able, and now will deal with events as they come or perhaps as they do not come.

Also I wanted to say that you forget one other futuristic path that might become possible.  I'll piggyback off of John Micheal Greer and call it the ecotechnic future.  He envisions this as a distance post industrial future where key industrial technologies have been integrated with modest renewable energy sources to provide something a bit more bountiful, durable and less labor intensive than the 19th century agrarian past.  I'll go out on a limb of optimism and say that I think this ecotechnic future is potentially closer than he envisions.  The more I examine industrialism the less brittle i actually think that it is, the science it has developed, the iron and raw resources that have been extracted above ground are all going to ensure that however things wind down it will not look like any option directly from the past.  There are technical solutions to the bulk of the doom and they could even be implemented rapidly, any dieoff, or great war is purely the result of sentience malfunctions in humans.



Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: Wyoming on August 12, 2012, 11:10:05 AM
RE

You will find in depth discussions on Ocean heat content and all aspects of AGW and the topics related to it at the following sites:  You may be familiar with them, but considering how much you write I wonder where you would find time to read.  One reason I don't comment a huge amount is that I first read all the blogs and articles I am interested first every day before I write anything.

http://www.realclimate.org/ (http://www.realclimate.org/)  There is a Start Here section on the upper left and a search function that will find more than one wants to read.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ (http://www.skepticalscience.com/)  This site also has a background section and you can search for topics.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/ (http://tamino.wordpress.com/)

These sites are run by PhD Physicists who specialize in AGW topics.  Many of them are among the most well known in the field.  The voume of links from these sites is overwhelming.

I also read all of Hansen's papers and many others that I find as links in articles.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/)  this blog covers many topics but it frequently has links leading to the actual papers being discussed.  Joe Romm runs it and, while he is a Physics PhD from the MIT he is one of the folks I consider left-wing cornucopian's in that he wants a BAU solution implemented that I don't believe is possible in the real world.  But it is a great news service anyway.

I never go to the Denier blogs as I get to read the critiques of their stuff on the other's where they point out the errors.  Plus when I read their crap I want to exercise my 2nd amendment rights.

While I don't think that folks similar to you and I can materially add to the scientific debate as we are not well educated enough in math and physics (at least I am not) nor are we in a position to perform leading edge research.  Others have those positions and they need to take care of them for the rest of us. 

Where I think that folks who have a sound understanding of science, history, human nature, and most especially a depth of experience in the Real World can really add value is in taking the academic type output like the Limits to Growth works (2052 by Randers being the most recent) or the solutions promoted by people like Joe Romm (the Wedges approach) and analyzing them with a more practical pragmatic perspective.  It is pretty clear, to me anyway, that they are too steeped in the ether (as is common to the Ivory Tower types) to understand how the real world will tromp all over their ideas. 

A blog which had a good set of such people working together could provide a more realistic assessment of what was going to happen and when than they seem capable of doing.  That is what really interests me.  It is the critical question at this point I think.  When is it most likely to fall apart.  The base answer to that question determines all subsequent actions.  Without some confidence in when there is no rational choice of actions.

Wyo
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 12, 2012, 11:30:32 AM
WY, I did not ask you for a list of websites, I asked for a specific reference which resolves the problem of heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean rather than the other direction.  How does a low mass, low heat capacity gas transfer so much heat to a high mass, high heat capacity liquid without itself being hotter than hell?


I also read all of Hansen's papers and many others that I find as links in articles.

If you have read all those articles, surely you can point me to the one where this problem is resolved.  You made the claim in a prior post that ALL the major questions regarding AGW hafe been resolved, and you said so with authority.  You accuse me of not providing evidence, when I actually put up all the Graphs corroborating my theory.  You are not providing any evidence to back up your claims.  A list of websites is not evidence.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 12, 2012, 12:02:45 PM
For a while I was "in between" jobs and doom was addictively fun, now I find it is something that I have to be much more careful about as I need to save what little brain processing power I have for my vocation.

One thing for sure, Demographically speaking the folks who tend to spend the most time on these boards are either Unemployed or Retired.  It's a pretty time consuming Hobby for sure.

I am employed, but over the summer few hours and otherwise when school is in session I still spend 3-4 hours every night on it.  Obviously anybody married with kids could not do that, Divorce would follow shortly.  LOL.

Quote
I can say though that I feel I've hedged my bets as well as possible based on the doom i've read and as a positive result am able to go about my life with much less anxiety.  I've prepared in the face of uncertainty as well as able, and now will deal with events as they come or perhaps as they do not come.

Can I ask what your Hedges are?  Remote Doomstead?  Bugout Machine?

Quote
Also I wanted to say that you forget one other futuristic path that might become possible.  I'll piggyback off of John Micheal Greer and call it the ecotechnic future.  He envisions this as a distance post industrial future where key industrial technologies have been integrated with modest renewable energy sources to provide something a bit more bountiful, durable and less labor intensive than the 19th century agrarian past.  I'll go out on a limb of optimism and say that I think this ecotechnic future is potentially closer than he envisions.  The more I examine industrialism the less brittle i actually think that it is, the science it has developed, the iron and raw resources that have been extracted above ground are all going to ensure that however things wind down it will not look like any option directly from the past.  There are technical solutions to the bulk of the doom and they could even be implemented rapidly, any dieoff, or great war is purely the result of sentience malfunctions in humans.

On my Optimistic Days which come once or twice a year I consider such a thing as a possible outcome.  :icon_mrgreen:  Unfortunately most days I think the spin down will come too rapidly for these types of solutions to be organized up and implemented.  Again, my sense is that our last chance to reorganize up was in the 60s-70s with the Back to the Land Movement.  However, instead of admitting they were pursuing an unsustainable paradigm, the Industrialists Openned Up the Credit Spigot to Full On and ran the tank dry with a 40 year long Keg Party.  Mom's Living Room is now littered with plastic cups and hung over partiers covered in their own vomit and the last Keg is about empty.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: Wyoming on August 12, 2012, 12:20:43 PM
RE

Is this the place where folks tend to disappear on you?

I would rather have had a response to this part of my post:

Quote
  Where I think that folks who have a sound understanding of science, history, human nature, and most especially a depth of experience in the Real World can really add value is in taking the academic type output like the Limits to Growth works (2052 by Randers being the most recent) or the solutions promoted by people like Joe Romm (the Wedges approach) and analyzing them with a more practical pragmatic perspective.  It is pretty clear, to me anyway, that they are too steeped in the ether (as is common to the Ivory Tower types) to understand how the real world will tromp all over their ideas. 

A blog which had a good set of such people working together could provide a more realistic assessment of what was going to happen and when than they seem capable of doing.  That is what really interests me.  It is the critical question at this point I think.  When is it most likely to fall apart.  The base answer to that question determines all subsequent actions.  Without some confidence in when there is no rational choice of actions.


Like I said earlier I will not sit and argue the physics.  There are folks working on this that are much more expert than us and I read their work and what other experts conclude (or disagree) about it.  The following hopefully will address the topic sufficiently.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm)

Wyo
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 12, 2012, 12:30:57 PM
RE

Is this the place where folks tend to disappear on you?

Probably one of them.  :icon_mrgreen:

Thanks for the references though, I will get to reading them now.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 12, 2012, 01:11:41 PM
Like I said earlier I will not sit and argue the physics.  There are folks working on this that are much more expert than us and I read their work and what other experts conclude (or disagree) about it.  The following hopefully will address the topic sufficiently.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm)


PHEW!  I was worried I would have to slog through 20 page papers and a lot of Differential Equations!  Fortunately no, nice short stuff.

Now, on Ref 1

Quote
If we can establish a relationship between the temperature difference across the skin layer and the net infrared forcing, then we will have demonstrated the mechanisms for greenhouse gas heating the upper ocean. That is seen in the flow chart on the right.

However, it is the case that none of these studies prove that these effects are happening in the real world – they are merely suggestive of what we might strongly expect

The other consequence of the warming ocean is it means there is additional "warming in the pipeline". Even if CO2 emissions were to start falling now, we already face further global warming of about another half degree by the end of the 21st century (Meehl 2005).

Emphasis mine.

This particular article only talks about what is occurring in the very TOP layer of the ocean maybe a millimeter or two down.  Thing is, this represents a miniscule part of the TOTAL VOLUME of Water, so any temp rise in that is not a great rise in Total Heat content.

Besides that, the author makes the disclaimer that this doesn't PROVE what is happening, only SUGGESTS what is happening.  Based on the authors preconceived notions of what is happening of course.

On Ref 2

Quote
However, it is the case that none of these studies prove that these effects are happening in the real world – they are merely suggestive of what we might strongly expect

Another disclaimer.  You made the statement that there is PROOF of this theory, when these folks make disclaimers it does NOT prove the case.

On Ref 3

Quote
The other consequence of the warming ocean is it means there is additional "warming in the pipeline". Even if CO2 emissions were to start falling now, we already face further global warming of about another half degree by the end of the 21st century (Meehl 2005).

No argument from me there, but this is transmission from Ocean to Atmosphere not the other way round.  The author simply makes the ASSUMPTION that the Ocean is being heated up from Solar radiation.  No mechanism is established for this.

I can give you a simple example of the difference the Atmosphere has from the Ocean in terms of how fast it heats up from Solar Radiation.  Just look at Night and Day temperatures.  As soon as the Sun comes up, the Atmosphere RAPIDLY heats up 20-30 degrees.  This because it has a very LOW Heat Capacity.  On the other hand, your local Lake maybe gets a degree or two warmer in the daytime when the sun shines on it.  This because it has a HIGH Heat Capacity.  A Backyard Kiddie Pool from Walmart filled with water might go up 10 degrees because there isn't much water in it. Ocean Temp changes hardly at all, too much water.

If you don't want to discuss the Physics with me this is fine, but you cannot make the case that AGW is PROVEN true when the folks involved in these studies all make disclaimers.There also just is no real good mechanism for Top Down Ocean heating to this magnitude. The top layer yes, but not the vast BULK of water below.That has to be coming from the Bottom Up.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: buzzard on August 12, 2012, 02:20:02 PM
OK, RE: As to the original subject of your post, the last camp that I considered myself a member of was the small but growing group of what was referred to as 'Uber Doomers' on the Peak Oil.com blog. After that I sensed the various categories growing faster than the number of awakening members. I too like to think that my present position regarding where humanity is headed was arrived at after years of diligent and logical study of the data. I admit, however, that certain information resonates with my concept of reality more than other information. For instance, when I read Derrick Jensen's monumental screed called "End Game" I found myself thinking, "This boy has nailed it."

After years of mulling over the questions regarding Collapse, I have decided that it can be broken into a further two categories: How we see the future realistically unfolding and how we see that the future should be unfolding.  I think that most everyone here sees future collapse of the human enterprise as fairly certain and nasty displayed over a fairly wide spectrum of scenarios. I can accept that. Where I become frustrated is in seeing what obviously should be our {humanities'}response to the collapse being ignored by almost everybody. When I finally learn to let that fanciful idealism go I can then throw my blood pressure pills away.

So... if a gun to my head, I would have to say that I occupy the neo-paleolithic camp only because I can't see any other sustainable means for Sapiens to continue. Nature absolutely bats last here. I see 100 million population when the smoke clears as a reasonable guess.

Although I have based my view of reality through out most of my life on a platform of science, I have cracked open the door to something else. This in my view can potentially become a game changer. I remain a basic cynic skeptic. However, what if...? What if we have been involved with extra-terrestrials for most of our existence as a species? What if other accessible dimensions exist along with the possibility of time travel? What if the Universe consists of consciousness and thought-forms create matter? What if so-called 'spiritual' realms are as real as electrons? Well, then I would be forced to slightly reevaluate my ideas about the future collapse. Damn cracked open door.
_____________

I like the Diner, by the way. I gave up participating in forums years ago because it seemed so pointless. A little fresh air here though... I particularly suffer from a couple of handicaps which dampens participation some [even though I have definite opinions about virtually everything]: I am computer semi-illiterate so I usually make no attempt to post sources. This naturally throws me into the welter-weight division of the blog wars. And...  I am pathologically lazy which means that even though I have been known to write an intelligible sentence occasionally it becomes dangerously close to work. There is no excuse for this. I am in the enviable position of being retired with lots of time on my hands. Again, as Roamer mentioned earlier, I spend a lot of time reading. I am in awe of those who, like you, seem to effortlessly vomit words.

Also, I have noticed that after spending a great deal of time studying and researching a subject I lose interest. For instance, as far as I can tell "Peak Oil" is a settled issue. We can dot some eyes and cross some tees. But that's about it. AGW is at this point is settled science. [Sorry RE. Your theory is interesting, but no cigar. And I know that I am not posting your asked for sources either.] The economic/financial house of cards only awaits that small gust of reality-wind. So what's left? UFO's and interdimensional beings of course, or possibly the killer comet with our name on it.

Actually now that I think about it the one issue before us that isn't settled is Population. As 'Monte Quest' used to say, "It is the elephant in the room." there is much room for discussion which neatly crosses all of those pedagogic, philosophic,theological, and political lines at once.

As far as losing some of the original combatants here on DD... perhaps some of us on second string need to step forward. [Not me of course. I'm referring to you others]   
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 12, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
Buzzad,
 I discuss the population elephant in the room in an upcoming article. I explain that he "elephant" biomass is smaller than the total world ant population biomass which has no carbon footprint problem. The "elephant" has a tiny portion with some giant pig carbon footprints. As I mentioned to Wyoming yesterday when he voiced the same concern as you, I do not believe that 500 million humans that have just been relieved of 6.5 billion are going to get rid of the mining, heavy industry, military machines, high tech toys like jets, yachts, etc. The problem lies in the cancerous growth paradigm. Because the elite survivors of an orchestrated massive population reduction are the greediest pigs around, they will, in short order pollute and war with each other as they have always done. The pig is the problem, not the elephant.
 
As to ET interaction, I believe they are certainly there, more intelligent and high tech than we are, and basically are watching the global petri dish with a few specimen retrievals now and then. I don't think their motives are good or bad; they are just engaging in good science and don't need to raise us for food or guide our path this way or that. I could be wrong but, since things are growing steadily worse, not better, I don't see ET bioremediating our planet or saving us from our greed anytime soon.

I think multiple dimensions and parallel universes are perfectly plausible and probably exist. I believe life goes on after death and we are graded by our behavior here. That drives my ethics but that doesn't blind me from the hard reality that mankind is out of balance because he refuses to view himself as a cog in the biosphere wheel. As long as human humility is a lost art, there really, really is no hope in this life. So I try to wake that humility up. All the science in the universe won't solve the greedy pig problem. It's possible THAT problem is dealt with after death but I would prefer that TPTB that suffer from it would extract their heads from their glorified navels and get real. Whatever happens, the ONLY THING that matters, in my view, is to apply the golden rule, not just to other humans, but to the entire biosphere so we can live a symbiotic rather than a parasitic existence. The more of us do that, the better it will be here AND in the hereafter for those who do.
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 12, 2012, 04:01:59 PM

I like the Diner, by the way. I gave up participating in forums years ago because it seemed so pointless. A little fresh air here though... I particularly suffer from a couple of handicaps which dampens participation some [even though I have definite opinions about virtually everything]: I am computer semi-illiterate so I usually make no attempt to post sources. This naturally throws me into the welter-weight division of the blog wars. And...  I am pathologically lazy which means that even though I have been known to write an intelligible sentence occasionally it becomes dangerously close to work. There is no excuse for this. I am in the enviable position of being retired with lots of time on my hands. Again, as Roamer mentioned earlier, I spend a lot of time reading. I am in awe of those who, like you, seem to effortlessly vomit words.

Well,you did a good job puking up a few words here, you should do it more often.  Glaqdto hear you are enjoying the Diner Cuisine though!

Quote
Also, I have noticed that after spending a great deal of time studying and researching a subject I lose interest. For instance, as far as I can tell "Peak Oil" is a settled issue. We can dot some eyes and cross some tees. But that's about it. AGW is at this point is settled science. [Sorry RE. Your theory is interesting, but no cigar. And I know that I am not posting your asked for sources either.]


I believe AB is now hard at work on another article looking at these various theories critically.

In the end, it's not really that important because in neither case is the Climate Change going to stop anytime soon, and its a matter of conjecture whether the Ocean Acidification will level off or not before the Phytoplankton crash. Whether Man Made or Mother Nature Brewed, its a Runaway Train right now.

Quote
The economic/financial house of cards only awaits that small gust of reality-wind. So what's left? UFO's and interdimensional beings of course, or possibly the killer comet with our name on it.

Don't forget Yellowstone going Ballistic!

Quote
Actually now that I think about it the one issue before us that isn't settled is Population. As 'Monte Quest' used to say, "It is the elephant in the room." there is much room for discussion which neatly crosses all of those pedagogic, philosophic,theological, and political lines at once.

Great to hear Monte's name again. The main interesting question for population is how fast it might collapse.  Looking at Monte's favorite St. Matthews Island Deer curve, that imposed over 7B People is mind boggling to consider.  Also to consider if/when anyone will set up the Death Camps.

Quote
As far as losing some of the original combatants here on DD... perhaps some of us on second string need to step forward. [Not me of course. I'm referring to you others]   

I am kind of resigned to the fact Diners will come and go.  :crying:  I did think that the core Diners from Reverse Engineering would last longer though.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: buzzard on August 12, 2012, 09:10:19 PM
Buzzad,
 I discuss the population elephant in the room in an upcoming article. I explain that he "elephant" biomass is smaller than the total world ant population biomass which has no carbon footprint problem. The "elephant" has a tiny portion with some giant pig carbon footprints. As I mentioned to Wyoming yesterday when he voiced the same concern as you, I do not believe that 500 million humans that have just been relieved of 6.5 billion are going to get rid of the mining, heavy industry, military machines, high tech toys like jets, yachts, etc. The problem lies in the cancerous growth paradigm. Because the elite survivors of an orchestrated massive population reduction are the greediest pigs around, they will, in short order pollute and war with each other as they have always done. The pig is the problem, not the elephant.

Coincidentally I am reading Gurdjieff talking about language and how it is used. "As a rule when people realize that they do not understand a thing they try to find a name for what they do not 'understand', and when they find a name they say they 'understand'. But to 'find a name' does not mean to 'understand'. Unfortunately, people are usually satisfied with names." The 'elephant' in the room I believe should more precisely refer to the subject or result of over population and not the population itself. Further, what you refer to as 'pigs' I prefer to call psychopaths a very small subset of the general population. As an analogy, while the population of the US has a much larger carbon footprint per capita than, say, Zimbabwe the psychopaths in power have a much larger carbon footprint than the general public.
 
As to ET interaction, I believe they are certainly there, more intelligent and high tech than we are, and basically are watching the global petri dish with a few specimen retrievals now and then. I don't think their motives are good or bad; they are just engaging in good science and don't need to raise us for food or guide our path this way or that. I could be wrong but, since things are growing steadily worse, not better, I don't see ET bioremediating our planet or saving us from our greed anytime soon.

What if those ETs have been interfering with human history for thousands of years and their motives are bad {at least for us}?


I think multiple dimensions and parallel universes are perfectly plausible and probably exist. I believe life goes on after death and we are graded by our behavior here. That drives my ethics but that doesn't blind me from the hard reality that mankind is out of balance because he refuses to view himself as a cog in the biosphere wheel. As long as human humility is a lost art, there really, really is no hope in this life. So I try to wake that humility up. All the science in the universe won't solve the greedy pig problem. It's possible THAT problem is dealt with after death but I would prefer that TPTB that suffer from it would extract their heads from their glorified navels and get real. Whatever happens, the ONLY THING that matters, in my view, is to apply the golden rule, not just to other humans, but to the entire biosphere so we can live a symbiotic rather than a parasitic existence. The more of us do that, the better it will be here AND in the hereafter for those who do.

As long as your golden rule is not, "He who owns all the gold makes all the rules".  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 12, 2012, 10:47:32 PM
Buzzard, I address the psychos issue in the article as well. I don't deny they are very bad news but I think I take a novel approach to explain their presence among us.  :icon_mrgreen:

The "golden rule" I believe in is symbiosis with all the earthlings we share the planet weed. If ET has been tinkering with us for his own fun and games and our detriment, then they are even stupider than we are. Space travel, free energy, a thousand planets to pick from and they just come here for some S&M or Dr. Strangelove?  It doesn't fit.  :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: buzzard on August 12, 2012, 11:03:40 PM
Buzzard, I address the psychos issue in the article as well. I don't deny they are very bad news but I think I take a novel approach to explain their presence among us.  :icon_mrgreen:

The "golden rule" I believe in is symbiosis with all the earthlings we share the planet weed. If ET has been tinkering with us for his own fun and games and our detriment, then they are even stupider than we are. Space travel, free energy, a thousand planets to pick from and they just come here for some S&M or Dr. Strangelove?  It doesn't fit.  :icon_scratch:

As far as I can tell there is no reason to assume that the ETs or multidimensional beings are any smarter or enlightened than humans. They merely have certain abilities which they use for their own purposes. And the energy which they require may be negative emotional energy. I also suspect that even though there may in fact be millions of planets to choose from, they are already occupied and defended.
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: Wyoming on August 13, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
RE

You think it is short stuff?  Did you look at the links to the research papers being discussed?

Ok, here are some more.  BTW there are lots of links and refs in what I sent you earlier that elaborate further on the info found on the front page.  Same this time.  They pretty much answer where the heat is coming from and going to.  There are lots of comments on the Real Climate links that elaborate and explain as well.  I find them useful.  There are litterally dozens (hundreds?) of papers that discuss various aspects of the heat budget out there.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/)

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00110y.html (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00110y.html)

another interesting one

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/)

 

You make it sound like the researchers working this subject are not aware of the issue of deep ocean heating and all the various components and aspects of heat transport.  Do you really think that? 

There is a body of good work supporting the opposite of your opinion.  Can you point to refs of peer reviewed research that support yours?

It would seem that if there was even a small chance of what you are saying was the case then there would have been serious study of the concept by now.  A lot of people have been trying for a couple of decades to shoot AGW down (for both the right and wrong reasons).  Absolutely nothing has panned out for them.

Wyo
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: RE on August 13, 2012, 01:49:29 PM
OK, I read through the latest series of references, and here is a good sample of the problem:

Quote from: Hansen et al
One of the biggest problems with this method is that it assumes that the climate system has only one “time scale,” and that time scale determines its long-term, equilibrium response to changes in climate forcing. But the global heat budget has many components, which respond faster or slower to heat input: the atmosphere, land, upper ocean, deep ocean, and cryosphere all act with their own time scales. The atmosphere responds quickly, the land not quite so fast, the deep ocean and cryosphere very slowly. In fact, it’s because it takes so long for heat to penetrate deep into the ocean that most climate scientists believe we have not yet experienced all the warming due from the greenhouse gases we’ve already emitted [Hansen et al. 2005].

Emphasis mine.  What is MISSING here?  Nowhere is the Energy release from Quakes and Vulcanism EVER accounted for!  The only portion of the Energy equilibrium being looked at is the Radiation coming in from the Sun, with the ASSUMPTION that this is the only Energy Driver for Climactic Systems.


There is a body of good work supporting the opposite of your opinion.  Can you point to refs of peer reviewed research that support yours?

The works you so far have cited are not Opposite to my opinion.  I agree there is an atmospheric component to this effect and that Greenhouse warming is occuring.  Same papers say that the effects they are seeing are GREATER than their models account for.  Why?

Quote
It would seem that if there was even a small chance of what you are saying was the case then there would have been serious study of the concept by now.

If you think that, you don't know how Science Research works.  Everybody is a Specialist, and they focus down on what they know in their own field of study.  Climatologists/Meteorologists/Weathermen study the Atmosphere and Ocean and Solar Radiation, they don't include Geotectonic forces in their field of expertiese.  Geologists and Vulcanologists study Plate Tectonics and Eruptions in the effort to predict them, they are not concerned with the Atmosphere.  Each group gets Grants from Industry to research what they know based on what their previous work was.  You build on this and get bigger Grants all the time by further "proving" what you started out to prove.  The greater your "reputation" for any given field the bigger the Grants you can get and the more invested you are in proving you are right.

The Climatologists have been building a case for a very long time now and are completely bought into the models they have built, which aren't really wrong, they just aren't complete.  I have yet to see a paper anywhere that accounts for where the energy from earthquakes and volcanoes actually GOES once it is released.  The Climatologists don't drop it in their models, and the Geologists don't worry about it after it blows.  They can measure how many Giga Joules were released in any quake, but they don't tell you what happenned to it or where it went.

Anyhow, as I remarked up thread a ways, when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, it isn't that important really who is right here, because BOTH models indicate the same thing, which is that we are on a Runaway Train here and the Climate Change looks like it will continue unabated for the forseeable future.  If we are going to focus our Science on anything now, it would be on how to live on a Planet with a vastly different Climate than we have now, whatever the underlying cause of it is.

RE
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: roamer on August 15, 2012, 10:33:35 AM
RE,
Concerning my hedges, well I got the basic bugout machine, survival gear, broad skillset ect covered.  Really though none of those is a  hedge, just basic emergency skills every human ought to have.  I've lived on "sustainable" permaculture farms, gathered skills learned how to live fairly poor.  The one thing I've learned the really hard way in this society is that you can't do much without money or as an outsider.  So my hedge now is that I have fired back up my career and am going to work as an engineer at well located essential industrial facility, right in the belly of the beast.   Not a hedge so much as a tactic, one I plan to stick to until some serious structural changes occur.
I do still vow to uphold the DD'er pledge of "save as many as you can"  and from my perspective that starts with me getting on my feet well enough that I might do some open source relevant R&D work and hopefully start an experimental post fossil/survival farm down the road. Hope to start writing, blogging and getting some engineering work done on that this fall, once I get settled in my new position. 
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 15, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
Roamer,
Quick question. I am not sending you a private message because I want anyone else out there that wants to answer to be feel free to do so. I know you are a mechanical, rather than an electrical, engineer but you must have studied electrical generators. I took a course of about a year in industrial electronics and robotics but, beyond describing the basics of windings, stators,  rotors and armature hysteresis losses, not much detail was provided. I have been working off and on with a new type electrical generator idea. I will not patent it. When I get it polished enough, I'll post it here with a sketchup file and all the details. If it works well, it will be a boon to survivalists because it will aid them in generating electricity cheaply. My question to you is this: How close to the collapsing magnetic field that induces electron flow in the windings does the insulated copper winding have to be for maximum electron flow induction? Is the induced current ruled by "the closer the better" (as in "gets weaker with the square of the distance") rule or is there some happy medium related to the number of windings?  My invention has no central shaft and has the windings fixed with permanent magnets rotating inside the windings (generating brushless DC).
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: roamer on August 18, 2012, 07:18:53 AM
Algelbert, generator and alternator design is not really a simple subject to explain and really requires brushing up on all electromagnetic laws before being in a position to understand it. Personally I can vaguely recall these laws, so don't hold me too hard to the explanation that follows.  I think the basic principle you need to ponder is that the strength of the induced emf field is proportional to the time rate of change of the magentic field.  So you first need to determine what output voltage you desire to produce power at.  Then you need to figure out how to go about achieveing the required time rate of change of the magnetic field.   Several factors influence the magnitude of the rate of change of the magnetic field, this includes the strength of the magnetic field, number of windings on the stator, and rotational or linear oscillatory speed.  I do not think that distance is actually critical, so long as your windings encase all the magnetic field lines.  Obviously though this imposes some cost constraints as the further away from the changing magnetic source the larger and more expensive the stator would have to be, so in actuality closer is better.   
As for your question of " maximizing electron flow induction". I don't think you really want to do this as the way to achieve it would be by minimizing the voltage you are generating at which would be done by having a low number of windings and therefore a high current output at a given mechanical generator power input. 
You will need to elaborate on your device a bit though for me to get what you are trying to achieve.  Right now I do not understand how you can have  rotating magnets without some sort of central shaft to drive them, nor how you can generate DC without brushes or a commutator in such an arrangement.

As for a rugged simple DC generator for keeping communication in survival situations I recommend checking out the new biolite, it is a gasifying wood cookstove couple with a thermoelectric generator for cell phone and computer charging needs http://biolitestove.com/ (http://biolitestove.com/)
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 18, 2012, 12:49:46 PM
Roamer,
Thank you kindly for all that information. I will copy and paste it and dwell on it to see what I can come up with. I've got this huge book that cost me $150 about ten years ago "Permanent Magnet Design and Applications" Moskowitz that goes into a lot of detail about flux and magnetic fields so I have some grasp of how to get most of the windings over the main part of the collapsing field but I will get back to the drawing board on what my current and voltage requirements are.

Here are some pictures I just uploaded of a prototype (on the drawing board only) with a ball park idea of construction lacking winding count. The basic method used to avoid a central shaft is that a toothed belt surrounds a rotating annulus with a series of large (and, of course, very expensive) rod or button type permanent magnets polarized along their length with gaps for collapsing field electric induction (they are the blue and red cube/rectangular solids in these pictures) . The annulus is held in position by three roller assemblies that fit through three corresponding gaps in the windings (although the windings all connect to each other so there is only one "+" and one "-" DC terminal. A housing surrounds the annulus supporting the windings with gaps for the rollers and the toothed belt entry and exit points. The toothed belt is attached to a wheel with a central shaft geared appropriately to  provide the mechanical energy to drive the electrical generator at the proper rpm regardless of load (within limits, of course).

 
BACK
FRONT
CLOSEUP OF "+" and "-" DC terminals. Looky here! No brushes!

I know! It's ugly as sin, but do you think it might work? :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: roamer on August 18, 2012, 02:10:21 PM
agelbert,  Nice sketchup modelling work.  I  have to mull over your design a bit, perhaps I'm missing something but I do not see what the advantage is over not having a central shaft drive the generator.  I also do not see how this would be a DC generator.  It looks like you have three groups of windings or phases and without a commutator the current will alternate in polarity as the magnets rotate through the phases.  Additionally the number of magnets with respect to the number of phases needs to be calculated so that the phases are not  at odds with each other. Maybe this http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.windenergy.nl%2Fwebsite%2Ffiles%2Fartikelen%2FAXIAL_FLUX_HowItWorks.pdf&ei=HgIwUPeIBqTnyAH4iYGoDg&usg=AFQjCNF5rK4FM_dg4DFjFOBklzPG7-EWtA&sig2=vRlYNsghsxdyLOBw-4-99w&cad=rja] [url]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.windenergy.nl%2Fwebsite%2Ffiles%2Fartikelen%2FAXIAL_FLUX_HowItWorks.pdf&ei=HgIwUPeIBqTnyAH4iYGoDg&usg=AFQjCNF5rK4FM_dg4DFjFOBklzPG7-EWtA&sig2=vRlYNsghsxdyLOBw-4-99w&cad=rja (http://[url)[/url] article on a simple permanent magnet  axial generator for a wind turbine would be of some help
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: agelbert on August 18, 2012, 02:58:25 PM
Roamer,
Glad you liked the sketchup work. The idea of eliminating the central shaft came to me because, the way a normal stator and rotor are set up, you need commutators  to keep the current flowing in one direction as the shaft rotates. With this setup, although it looks like three sets of windings, they are all connected to each other for just one phase of DC. As the annulus rotates, the collapsing fields, regardless of magnetic polarity (a different ball of wax from electrical polarity), will generate DC in one direction only because the direction the fields are collapsing in is constant. To reverse the current, you would have to spin the annulus in the other direction. When I took that industrial electronics and robotics course, I rigged up a very crude emf induction setup by gluing a bunch of magnets to a plastic wheel on a shaft. I used coil wire (which is insulated like generator windings) and placed the coils near the outside of the spinning plastic wheel with magnets. My meter leads on the ends of the coil wire showed a weak but measurable voltage and current (DC). I figured, if I could wrap the coil around those magnets, I'd get more juice but that is impossible with a central shaft so that's where I came up with housing the magnets annulus and house it with one long continuous insulated winding. That way I could dispense with commutators and brushes. The reliability and longevity issues would be in the drive and mechanical transmission elements like bearings, gears and the toothed belt. The toothed belt would have to be built somewhat like a chain that can be disconnected at one point to remove and replace because, once the windings are in place, there is no way to take that toothed belt off without destroying the windings or breaking the belt.

I break with the traditional concept that the magnets are still and the coil does the rotating. I flip that on its head to get rid of commutators and brushes. I am still dealing with just one phase winding although I assume other phases could be introduced. I'm still at proof of concept somewhere bejond my plastic wheel with the coiled wire near the peripheral magnets going by.

I'll check out those links you gave.  :emthup:
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: roamer on April 18, 2013, 11:28:40 PM
agelbert, I think you might have to try to explain your idea first.  Indeed I'm not an electrical engineer,  and the principles you are looking for require a fair amount of math and basic electrical concepts to accurately describe. Your question may not be exactly what you are looking for, maximum electron flow does not really seem to be a sensible question to ask when designing a generator.  Off the top of my head I'd say that the generator you are describing works by having the windings intercept a moving magnetic field.  That strength of the induced electric field in the windings is proportional to the strength of the moving magnetic field which is intersected.   The magnetic field falls varies inversely over the distance between the windings and the moving magentic field (typically a rotor could also be a linear oscillating magentic or even a stationary oscillating induced field).  So what that means is that the further the windings are from the field the more windings you need to fully harness the power which the magnetic source is capable of transmitting into electricity.  In other words the further away the windings are the more expensive it is to build an effecient generator.  As for the effects of insulation I am not certain how much this reduces the magnetic permuabilty
Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: roamer on February 18, 2014, 09:02:36 AM
RE,
My hedges are multi pronged.  I've relocated to an industry that should be stable to the end of this order (undisclosed position at coal fired power plant) in a remote location. I got primitive living skills, modern camping and hunting skills,  am on paleo  diet and exercise protocol (best health insurance you can get), and am now taking to the hobby of designing integrated bugout machines, starting with the SUV I got.  All of those I enjoy though just for the sake of learning and self reliance.  Even the job in the remote location actually has more to do with my liking remote places and solitude than any sort of coherent strategy/
I am actively designing and researching integrated solar energy solutions, and best practice farming techniques.  Next year I hope to build some demonstration projects and systems. I really enjoy this and once I get stable in my new job I hope to share some of my work on this subject.
By far and away the biggest hedge, if you could call it that, is that I have made more peace with my mortality and the mind boggling conundrums we humans are prone to make.  I now seeing things from very very long cycles and no longer get so worked up over our immense near term mistakes.  From that lens too I actually have been surprised to find I have more faith in the earth experiment in human sentience than I previously had. No one on planet earth has unlimited power, the illuminati are only empowered by our collective greed and ignorance and these will wane as we all start to suffer more.   

The end is and always been at hand for many people on earth,




Title: Obsolescence of the Obsolete: Where Airplanes Go to Die
Post by: RE on May 21, 2015, 05:45:04 PM

Where America's Airplanes Go To Die

Tyler Durden's picture



 

Davis–Monthan Air Force Base is located in Tucson, Arizona. It occupies an area of over 10 square kilometers, equal to roughly 1,870 football fields. The base is the location of the Air Force Materiel Command's 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group, or AMARG in short. It is also known as the "boneyard." 

With the area's low humidity in the 10%-20% range, meager rainfall of 11" annually, hard alkaline soil, and high altitude of 2,550 feet, it has the "just right" conditions to avoid corrosion and not to need paving when moving massive objects. It has emerged as the perfect venue for one thing: the largest aircraft boneyard in the world, with a typical inventory of more than 4,400 aircraft.

Allowing the aircraft to be naturally preserved for cannibalization or possible reuse, Davis-Monthan is the logical choice for a major storage facility. The geology of the desert allows aircraft to be moved around without having to pave the storage areas.

AMARG's role in the storage of military aircraft began after World War II, and continues today.

Interactive map of AMARG as seen in the most recent Google maps satellite overflight:

Aerial Map of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AMARG and the Pima Air & Space Museum

 

Follows the brief  story of the world's largest military airplane boneyard.

AMARG was established in 1946 as the 4105th Army Air Force Unit to house B-29 and C-47 aircraft. By May of 1946, more than 600 B-29 Superfortresses and 200 C-47 Skytrains had been moved to Davis-Monthan. Some were preserved and returned to action in the Korean War, others were scrapped.

In 1948, after the Air Force's creation as a separate service, the unit was renamed the 3040th Aircraft Storage Depot.

In February of 1956, the first Convair B-36 Peacemaker aircraft arrived at Davis-Monthan AFB for scrapping. All of the fleet of 384 Peacemakers would ultimately be dismantled except for four remaining B-36 survivors saved for air museums.

In 1965, the depot was renamed the Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center (MASDC), and tasked with processing aircraft for all the US armed forces (not just the Air Force). The U.S. Navy had operated its own boneyard at Naval Air Station Litchfield Park at Goodyear, Arizona for Navy, Marine and Coast Guard aircraft. In February 1965, some 500 aircraft were moved from Litchfield Park to Davis-Monthan AFB. NAS Litchfield Park was finally closed in 1968.

The last Air Force B-47 jet bomber was retired at the end of 1969, and the entire fleet was dismantled at Davis-Monthan except for about 30 Stratojets which were saved for display in air museums.

In the 1980s, the center began processing ICBMs for dismantling or reuse in satellite launches, and was renamed the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) to reflect the expanded focus on all aerospace assets.

In the 1990s, in accordance with the START I treaty, the center was tasked with eliminating 365 B-52 bombers. The progress of this task was to be verified by Russia via satellite and first-person inspection at the facility. Initially, the B-52s were chopped into pieces with a 13,000-pound guillotine winched by a steel cable, supported by a crane. Later on, the tool of choice became K-12 rescue saws. This more precise technique afforded AMARG with salvageable spare parts.

In May 2007, command of AMARG was transferred to the 309th Maintenance Wing, and the center was renamed the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group.

* * *

Today, Davis-Monthan is the location of the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG), the sole aircraft boneyard and parts reclamation facility for all excess military and government aircraft. Aircraft from the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, NASA and other government agencies are processed at AMARG, which employs 550 people, almost all civilians.

It is the largest airplane boneyard in the world.

Another role of AMARG is to support the program that converts old fighter jets, such as the F-4 Phantom II and F-16, into aerial target drones. It also serves as an auxiliary facility of the National Museum of the United States Air Force, and stores tooling for out-of-production military aircraft.

AMARG's typical inventory comprises more than 4,400 aircraft, which makes it the largest aircraft storage and preservation facility in the world.

AMARG is a controlled-access site, and is off-limits to anyone not employed there without the proper clearance. The only access for non-cleared individuals is via a bus tour which is conducted by the nearby Pima Air & Space Museum.

* * *

Below is an extensive photo library of the residents of this final resting place for thousands of America's warplanes.

Aerial view of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Aerial view of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and AMARG airplane boneyard in Tucson, Arizona with rows of C-141 Starlifters, B-1B Lancers and F-111 Aardvarks in storage

Aerial view of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Aerial view of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Aerial view of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Aerial view of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Aerial view of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

C-141 and B-52 aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Aerial view of C-130 aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Another aerial view of C-130 aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG boneyard

Aerial view of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG circa 2011

Aerial view of work areas at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG

C-5A Galaxy transports in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG

C-5A Galaxy reclamation at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG

A-10 Thunderbolts parked at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG

B-1B Lancer bomber in storage at the Air Force Materiel Command's

Boeing C-135 S/N 91518 parked on Celebrity Row at AMARG

United Air Lines Boeing 727-100, S/N N7004U, built in 1963, on display at Davis-Monthan AMARG's "Celebrity Row"

U.S. Air Force C-22A Transport, S/N 84-0193 ... variant of the Boeing 727 ... parked on Celebrity Row at AMARG

F-14 on display on Celebrity Row at Davis-Monthan AFB's AMARG facility

F-4 Phantom II fighters in desert storage at Tucson, Arizona, AMARG

Helicopters in desert storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona

F-111 Aardvarks in storage at AMARG

KC-135 aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base AMARG in October, 2012

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II on display on Celebrity Row at AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB

* * *

That largely covers US warplanes, but what about commercial jets? As the Bossroyal blog shows, many if not most disused, aging or obsolete airliners, end up in the Californian desert, 150 kilometres outside Los Angeles, at the Mojave Air and Space Port.

In addition to being the “world’s premier civilian aerospace test center”, the Mojave Port is also one of America’s most well-known ‘aircraft boneyards’, and just like in Arizona, the dry Nevada conditions are ideal for minimising corrosion on jets looking for new owner-operators, or just looking for a quiet place in which to rust in peace.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of junked or stored airliners form a surreal view amid the harsh landscape in Mojave, and all the major commercial airliner manufacturers – Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed Martin – are well represented.

For plane buffs, Mojave and facilities like it dotted across the US provide both a history of commercial aviation as well as a damning judgement on modern day consumerism.  In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks, for example, the demand for air travel hit massive turbulence, and many major airlines were forced to mothball some of their fleet due to lack of demand. Many of them ended up at Mojave, and many remain there today, waiting to spread their wings once more.

In addition to the boneyards shown above, there are many other active and inactive places where thousands of airplanes and fighter jets have been stored across the continental US. The annotated map below is a handy reference to tracking down most of them.

Source: Airplaneboneyards, Bossroyal

Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: Eddie on May 21, 2015, 05:59:19 PM
How much healthcare could we have bought with the money it took to build all that shit?

No wonder the country is fucking broke. What incredible waste. Now to that, add all the naval vessels that have been scrapped, and all the tanks and missiles and nukes. And to that add the salaries of all the people we have screwing around in 140 other sovereign foreign countries.

Title: Re: Obsolescence of the Obsolete
Post by: EndIsNigh on April 06, 2017, 12:08:39 PM
Some interesting themes going on in this article, from the social aspects of the internet, to the nature of intellectual debate.  In the real world as on the internet, people drift in and out of our lives, observing the rule that nothing is static.  While there is some healthy exchange of thoughts and information here as in other venues, as you pointed out humans tend to talk AT each other, instead of talking together.  How can any significant understanding come from a process of "I defy you, you defy me?"  I see this is in part caused by not listening, or in this case not reading, as well as our preconceived notions against which the information is evaluated. 

As you said there are bigger themes that the blogosphere and commentariat tend to agree upon despite their specific brand of doomTM.  I would hazard a guess that the core themes are