Slashdot Mirror
Laughing Gas Is Major Threat To Ozone Layer
Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that according to new research, nitrous oxide, the colorless, sweet-smelling gas with a long history as a medical and dental anesthetic is the next big threat to Earth's protective ozone layer. Its role in destroying ozone has long been recognized, as well as its role as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas but the new study puts nitrous oxide's ability to deplete ozone into numbers comparable to those used for other ozone-depleting gases covered by the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The researchers note that the health of the ozone layer has been improving since the adoption of the protocol and that nitrous oxide looms large today as an artificial destroyer of the ozone layer, in part because the emissions of other harmful chemicals have been so sharply reduced." (Continues.)
"Globally, Earth's ozone layer has thinned by 5 to 6 percent since 1980, before CFCs and their ilk came into wide use, according to Akkihebbal Ravishankara, who led the study. He and his colleagues note that 6 percent may appear to be a small number, but it still can lead to significant effects on organisms at Earth's surface. The researchers did not make any policy recommendations in light of their finding. 'It is not for us to gauge how much risk there is,' says Ravishankara. In any event, Ravishankara says, at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'"
Did April 1st come early this year?
Turns out it *is* a laughing matter.
I'm super serial, guys.
we must attach bottles of nitrous oxide to our automobiles and burn it up ASAP!
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
This is almost funny. You know, the gas and all. Whatever. Anyway, what other gasses do we have to do the same job(s)? I would think this might not go to well with the people who use it, given how common and likely (comparatively) inexpensive it is.
Does this mean racing games will have to use some kind of different pickups for speed boosts?
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
...at the moment researchers could not say with confidence 'how much nitrous oxide comes from where.'
That would probably be because it isn't regulated. It's actually legal to own despite its recreational properties. As an oxidizer it has many industrial uses. And like all oxidizers, yes, when it gets into the upper atmosphere Bad Things Happen(tm). We may need better methods of containing it (it is a gas at room temperature, of course) when used in an industrial setting, but that's about the extent of what we can do to contain the problem -- it's a very basic chemical with a wide range of applications, many of which aren't amiable to being changed to using another agent.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
After all, where else does a sudden uptick in nitrous oxide emissions come from?
The ricers and rocketry enthusiasts burn it up in their engines. The hippies and dental patients metabolize it. So where else would more nitrous in the environment be coming from except from the relatively recent proliferation of gourmet coffee shops?
Imagine all the people...
This article doesn't really matter. Any amount of numbers can be thrown around, quoted, refuted, or postulated.
Yeah, like Homer said "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true".
It's never smelled sweet to me. Weird. Never inhaled it through my nose I guess, but still..
Even laughing gas is no fun.
Dear Planet Earth:
I'm really sorry for all those whip-its I did in college.
aaahahahhahhahahahhhahahahaha... HA!
We covered this on the previous Christian Science Monitor article, idiot.
Nobody's talking about laughing gas, the anesthetic and geek enhancer. They're talking about artificial and natural shit -- let the new round of hilarity begin.
Dear Planet Earth:
I'm really sorry for all those whippets I did in college.
Fixed that for you.
Any global agenda behind which there is a "political will" is innately corrupt, bullshit, or something that they stand to benefit or gain personally from. Our politicians aren't trying to fix world hunger are they? No? But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years?
You can't honestly stand here and believe that the most corrupt people in the world give a shit about the ozone layer or global warming -- before anything "bad" happens as a result of any man-made climate problems (even if they are true -- though largely unproven), they, their children, and children's great great grandchildren will be all dead and gone. All they care about right now is having power and getting wealthy. "Cap and Trade" is not a constructive tax -- it is destructive. We have technologies other than coal and oil to produce energy, but it is far too expensive to implement privately, we NEED a $1 TRILLION bill to kick-start it, but congress isn't willing to toss that one down, but they'll gladly punish us for using the only cheap and available technology that will keep this country running. Why do you think that is? Because they can sit here and tax the US citizens for using oil, and quite dramatically at that, to get lots and lots of money -- but do you honestly think any of that money will come back to us? $2 Trillion in deficit spending already has gone *poof*... the trillions to come trickling out of our GDP from this tax will disappear just as well, and with absolutely no liability to anyone in congress while they kick back and enjoy the gold linings in their pockets.
It's just the next buzz-word in politics: "omgs, it might destroy human life on the earth in a few hundred years in a worst case scenario!!"... As far as self-preservation goes, these politicians ought to be worried more about disrespecting and angering the citizens that give them power, after all, if they continue down this path, it'll be the French Revolution all over again, and I'll bring my guillotine with me.
Ha-Ha!
A meme becomes the defacto threat to humanity?
but it damn well won't stop the "consensus" train.
The only good thing about N2O is that its not something you can tax the population over, at least directly. Can't wait to see who the N2O bogeymen are going to be.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Um, yeah. Those too. Damn! I mean.... Damn!
Isn't it funny how thoroughly someone can expose their ignorance, with one stupid sentence?
sic transit gloria mundi
Better stock up now!
Hahahahahahahahahaahahaha we are destroying our ozone layer, hahahahahahahaaha
http://freelinuxguides.wikidot.com
Naming a magazine after a superstition should be insightful?
It's interesting that something so dear to so many hippies is destroying something so dear to so many hippies.
Now where did i put that whip-it balloon and Grateful Dead CD ...
Any global agenda behind which there is a "political will" is innately corrupt, bullshit, or something that they stand to benefit or gain personally from. Our politicians aren't trying to fix world hunger are they? No? But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years?
You sir are an idiot, a class A idiot. In an article that talked about the successful resolution to the Ozone problem as a result of joint political will you claim that anything from politics is always wrong.
Politics is about getting the leaders you vote for, and quite clearly I can guess who you'd vote for out of Bush (an idiot) and Obama (not an idiot).
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
TFA says that the ozone layer is improving anyway. So it appears that NO, while bad for the ozone layer, is not present in sufficient quantities to actually be causing a problem. No action should be required.
Or in different terms, it may be the most significant cause of damage to the ozone layer, but it is not a cause of significant damage to the ozone layer.
Sorry, but I have a hard time believing anything that is the result of /research/ from something titled "Christian Science".
Christian Science is a religious belief system founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866 and is practiced by members of the Church of Christ, Scientist. Christian Science asserts that humanity and the universe as a whole are spiritual rather than material in nature and that truth and good are real tangible things, therefore, evil and error are unreal. Christian Scientists believe that only through prayer and fully knowing and understanding God will this be demonstrated.
Borrowed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science
In other news.... Christian Scientists discover that atheists a 66.6% more responsible for global warming than Christians. This was meticulously researched by Pastor Mark Mathewson during several hours of prayer and days of fasting.
At this point, we need to start tagging stories with such doom and gloom scenarios as "ONOZWEREALLGONNADIE," (Ticker symbol: ONOZ) or perhaps in this case, "OZONEWEREALLGONNADIE."
I'm beginning to wonder if armageddon science isn't becoming more appealing because it gets the big grants, and we are looking more frequently at doomsday scenarios as a function of marketing.
This is not to belittle the work. This may well be the big one. CFCs were certainly a problem, but I'm just about worn out by all the dire warnings lately. I'm wondering if there's a good paying job in figuring out how to survive all the plagues we keep discovering.
--
Toro
(Who would like his tags to start working again so he can just tag stories instead of typing up a manifesto! ;^) )
oh shit, hear those helicopters...? oh shit...hahahahahahaha!!!1
NOx == nitric oxide - this stuff, when hit with sunlight, causes smog - or low level ozone.
N2O == Nitrous oxide - the stuff we are talking about
Oh dear. Boy are you an idiot. The whole point of Science is that everyone should believe in Science without question.
Where the hell would we be if scientists went around asking questions and challenging orthodoxies?
Homer is amazingly wise. Mmmmmm... doughnuts...
Unfortunately, cherry picking facts will prove almost anything. Statistical information is a wonderful use of it. I'd cite references, but 98% of all statistics are made up, including this one. :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Since you found the wikipedia article, do a bit more and look at "Christian Science Monitor". Just because the religion sponsors the paper, doesn't mean the papers articles are influence by the religion. I have found at least the political reporting to very very balance. Never thought to get my 'science' from it though.
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
I just want to give a heartfelt congratulations to humanity for being the cosmic equivalent of a giant canister of whipped cream. Excellent job! *claps*
Why so serious?
So, thanks, your "20x" argument shows actually how severe human CO2 production actually is.
So, thanks yourself, asshole. "Bad argument" is the perfect title for your mindless posting. If you are too fucking stupid to understand that the discussion here is about nitrous oxide (N2O) and not about carbon dioxide (CO2), then maybe you should just pop your head back up your asshole and spend the rest of your life in abject ignorance.
All the things you talked about -- plants, animals, etc. -- apply to CO2, not N2O. Guess what -- it's not enough to read TFS and/or TFA, assuming you did either -- you have to read with comprehension.
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Climate change is already have negative effects, and they'll get worse over the next century. Hundreds of thousands of years is wishful thinking according to the best scientific evidence available today.
I've directly addressed cap and trade, which seems like a very constructive, capitalistic approach that will jumpstart a new industrial revolution. My hope is that the United States invests heavily in nuclear fission technology, preferably using waste reprocessing and newer designs like pebble bed reactors.
As I've stressed, the existence of abrupt climate change is a scientific topic. It's a good idea to ignore politicians and their ridiculous claims, and focus on the science.
Bush and Obama? Same shit, different names.
You sir, are a very, very bad troll.
Is this the "change" you wanted?
Don't disrupt The Narrative with Facts
I can guess who you'd vote for out of Bush (an idiot) and Obama (not an idiot).
Your presuming something that hasn't been clearly demonstrated yet. Lets wait and see when he actually does something that we wouldn't expect from Bush.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It is regulated by the EPA. Just see . Excess NOx is a byproduct of incomplete combustion of a hydrocarbon.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
It's worse than I had ever thought possible!
Time to call Batman AND Captain Planet!
Sounds terrible... Everyone needs to send me all there nitrous for proper disposal... food grade only please.
I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot without cashing in, so I made a blog full of ads and posted there. Now I can repeat myself multiple times in the same article, but at least I'll be shamelessly self promoting at the same time.
Fixed that for you.
Oh, and that version of the Vostok ice core graph you included is horrendously misleading. If you don't overlay the two graphs on top of each other you can easily be fooled into thinking the data suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 lead to higher temperatures. When you do overlay the charts, it becomes clear that the increase in temperature slightly preceded the increase in CO2 in each cycle, including this one.
I've specifically addressed that point in 7 (f) of the index: "CO2 increases after temperature, so it doesn't warm the planet."
But since the tone of your response implies that you probably won't bother, I'll repeat myself once again: this phase lag isn't known with great precision, the worst case scenario has it lagging ~800 years out of ~5000 year deglaciations, and more fundamentally, the difference between the small Milankovitch forcings and the actual observed temperature swings shows that CO2 amplifies the natural forcing. CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, make no mistake about that.
And I'm sorry if you're offended by ads. I tried really hard to force them to be non-animated, and only put them off to the side (I HATE interstitial ads with a burning passion.) And to be honest I make ~8 cents a day from them-- my dream is to have them make 30 cents a day so that the website pays its own hosting costs. And, yes, even though I've archived most of my responses for people to read, I still find it necessary to repeat myself because people keep bringing up the same strange talking points regardless of the scientific evidence. Again, sorry if this is horribly offensive to you.
Correction: "the worst case scenario has it lagging ~800 years out of ~5000 year deglaciations" should read "the worst case scenario has it lagging ~1000 years out of ~5000 year deglaciations" due to error bars on the ice-age/gas-age estimations, mainly due to accumulation rate uncertainties and gas diffusion before the snow is firmly compacted.
Your mom is a major threat to the ozone layer! /high on laughing gas
lolz
wut?
Ok genious, explain why the present Swedish government has implemented a cap and trade system for CO2 and SIMULTANEOUSLY lowered the overall tax burden, precisely as they promised during the election.
Yup, you got that right, a party that went to election with the promise to lower taxes has implemented sharp taxation on CO2 without breaking their election promise of lowering the overall taxation level. Of course never mind us over here across the pond. The fact that we cut our CO2 emissions at the same time as we reduce our taxation pressure is obviously consistent with your deluded idea that this fuss about global warming is just about taxing Americans. Yea that's right, we are dramatically transforming our European economies just so your politicians can tax you. Makes perfect sense doesn't it ?
Wow, the reasonable post that I referred to in my own is now at -1? And it's the target of an incredibly rude flame by someone who apparently didn't read the title of the post you responded to. Sad.
I see nothing in the article that I couldn't have guessed from the name.
I wouldn't trust a blind man to tell me what something looks like. I wouldn't trust a deaf man to tell me what something sounds like.
I certainly wouldn't trust a report from a organization with followers that willfully distort their perception of reality to fit within their teachings.
In my personal experience religious people tend to like to stay within their own little groups. It might just be that they happen to know enough people within their group to never have to venture out of the group to find someone with the skills they need.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 'scientists' involved shared the same belief system.
This page shows the Antarctic ozone history. You can see that there is only a hint of recovery in the past few years, so to say it has been improving since the 1987 Montreal Protocol isn't quite correct. Chemical depletion of the ozone layer is mostly a polar issue, and looking at global ozone trends can be misleading. For example, global ozone is also governed by mid-latitude dynamics. The dynamics of the tropopause (the boundary between the ozone-rich stratosphere and lower atmosphere) is important, and there are some indications of change in stratosphere-troposphere exchange in recent years that is perhaps related to climate.
It's not named after a superstition or a religion, it's named after a Church in Boston which started the publication in 1908 after a failed attempt to take the founder's estate and money by relatives in Boston and New York.
Perhaps if you weren't trolling to start a flame, you would have been able to find that information and not appears as a direct intention of this comment.
Despite the Montreal Act, CFC114, which is also a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02, is leaking from Paducah Uranium Enrichment facilities into the atmosphere through hundreds of kilometres of cooling pipes. The average is 1 million pounds (thats 453,592.27 kilograms) PER YEAR since the bans began. That is 8 618 255.03 kilograms (8 Megatons) of CFC114 *since* they were banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah.
One thing that is not immediately obvious from the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer is the eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon. The assertion is examined in these links production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more
and Field studies indicate a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation
and Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment. Sure it's 10 years old, but that's an extra 10 million pounds of CFC114 resultant from enrichment operating, I don't imaging it's got any better.
Going after nitrous oxide emissions is the proverbial trying to plug a hole in a dam with your fingers while it is bursting elsewhere. CFC 114 is still used for enrichment today, and the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's in the United States. We can expect up to 1 million pounds of CFC114 to leak into the atmosphere per year whilst enrichment continues.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It's quite simple. You argue "why is it that in OUR country, which is nothing like your country, doing this worked (well didn't impact our tax rates anyway!), but in yours, you think it wont?!"
I don't know how uneducated you are but grab a map or a globe and check out relative sizes. Not good enough? Numbers: USA - 9,161,923 KM^2... Sweden - 449,964 KM^2. That's 20.4 : 1. Population? USA - ~307,269,000... Sweden - ~9,263,872... That's 33.2 : 1. And let's just completely for sake of simplicity IGNORE the climate differences because that has a huge factor.
Now, actual energy consumption numbers? Let's see....
USA
Sweden
Ok. Sweden's total energy consumption in 1999 was 51094 units. For reference, the USA consumed 2269985 units. 44.4 : 1. The USA produced enough renewable energy to completely power all of Sweden... boy.. a CO2 tax wouldn't be very expensive there now would it? But do you notice something about how much CO2 emitting fuels we use here in the USA because it is TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE to power this entire country on anything else with the grid being powered primarily by private corporations. A CO2 tax here is imposed and is completely unfair because we're one of the highest renewable energy producing countries ON THE PLANET, yet we're still not completely green -- and the country is SO MUCH BIGGER than sweden that a much larger portion of the population must commute, and a huge percentage of those vehicles burn a petroleum product -- producing CO2.
We'd have no problem with a CO2 tax... IF the government would spend equally in that sector and to make *SOME* effort to help the country move toward the government's goals. Cash for clunkers -- bad move, good for banks (the ones the gov. now owns).. and the motor companies (which it also now owns.. lol..). Hundreds of billions of $ in stimulus -- building roads, money disappearing in pork projects, most of it completely invisible to citizens -- bailing out insurance companies, banks, motor vehicle companies, etc etc etc. A TRILLION DOLLAR healthcare bill -- when the existing system would be *FINE* if everyone didn't have to pay so much for energy (taxing it won't help). Where's the "stimulus" towards renewable energies? Towards R&D in vehicle technology that will make very high mileage vehicles CHEAP? Nowhere... but a very willing government to make us pay for producing CO2 when it's our lifeline at this point in history.
We all want to pursue fission, it's less waste producing that burning coal but you've got fanatic green fucktards who lobby against it... we want fusion (lol, that would power THE PLANET).. but no government investment there.. we'd like to all power our homes with solar panels and turbines.. stipends here and there but no real public push or incentive from the government. Nothing. NOTHING. But tax our consumption practices because "change" is desired.
You see, liberals hit a brick wall here with this one. Complete hypocrisy. On the one hand, when the economy is failing, we're gonna pump money into banks and corporations who have shown an inability to run their company successfully (ie, why they're failing). That's FINE, encourage those bad practices which are economically DISASTROUS... but CO2 emissions? Oh, we need... TR.. TR.. TRUH.. TRILLIONS of dollars.. to implement a "green" energy grid -- which nobody has!!... well.. fuck you guys, we'll make you PAY MORE MONEY TO US, the FUCKING government of the USA, because we're the big daddys baby, we're YOUR FUCKING DADDY, give us your money.. because we'll re-invest it in helping you do what is good for this country!! (Lol). Taking money from companies that you want to turn around and invest money in renewable energy is completely counter-productive and counter-intuitive.
Your argument is inherently flawed. L
Guess what -- it's not enough to read TFS and/or TFA, assuming you did either -- you have to read with comprehension.
My response was about CO2 because that's the posting I was responding to was about.
But evidently, basic reading comprehension is beyond your grasp. Not surprising, given that most global warming deniers are obviously complete morons.
I remember reading about nitrous oxide, from sources such as nylon production, being one of the big ozone depleting problem chemicals nearly twenty years ago. Everything old is new again.
First, you probably do not know what the christian science movement is. It sounds like you are willfully ignorant of it from your post. Second, there is nothing preventing science and religion in general from co-existing. It would be foolish of your to think there is. Science is the attempt at a explanation of the natural environment around us. Religion is a spiritual pursuit to give it meaning. In other words, they do not cross and except for .00099% of science, religion makes not claims counter to science in general.
You are attempting to create a controversy where there is none and your ignorance is behind it. Nothing prevents a scientist from having a religious belief, nothing anywhere says he can't believe in something other then science. And nothing at all makes an assumption that it will cloud their judgment except for evangelical atheist who want to push their beliefs over everyone else'.
MOD PARENT UP
I'm suspicious about this "Christian Science Monitor" if it's scientific why not just call it "Science Monitor"? And if it modifies its views to accommodate Christianity can it really call itself scientific?
But... the future refused to change.
Effectively your argument boils down to "Sweden has a lower population thus it is not as expensive to power it". Problem is that we also have correspondingly less GDP to spend on power egneration.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this bit though:
"We all want to pursue fission, it's less waste producing that burning coal but you've got fanatic green fucktards who lobby against it..."
Sweden gets 50% of electricity, and a quarter of our energy, from fission which largely explains our much lower CO2 emitted per capita. There's no partiuclar reason the US could not scale its nuclear generation capacity. Where I don't agree with you however is that this is caused largely by opposition by green groups. In reality nuclear is not favoured by American utilities because coal is cheaper. Cap and Trade "fixes" that by making coal more expensive. This does indeed raise energy costs, but guess what. Moving the entire US electricity production from fossils to low carbons oruces will cost money no matter how you look at it. If you ban or cap fossils the money will come from increased energy prices. If you continue business as usual then the cost will be even harsher when you are eventually forced to make the switch.
Btw, my argument was never that implementing cap and trade will not cost Americans money. My argument was that to conclude from this that there are nefarious motives behind politicians decision to implement the scheme does not follow. The US government may be doing a lot of things wrong, but the decision to start taxing fossils is not one of them and they are far from the only country doing it.
...unless we change our way of life, and send every spare cent to our governments.
No thanks- we've been doing that since the ComingIceAge of 1978 or so, the KillerBees, TheOzoneHole, ManMadeGlobalWarming, and a host of other hoaxes meant to separate us from our money AND OUR CALM.
Go away, Henny Penny: sky's not falling, here. Ocean's not racing 100ft, here. Don't need to start using poisonous light bulbs, here.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
I read the first paragraph of the wikipedia article which gives me the impression that it's still requires faith which I'd would be in direct conflict with the scientific method.
Religion is notorious for disregarding scientific fact and crushing all opposition. From my point of view it has a very bad track record.
I merely was stating that the 'Christian Science Monitor' makes me disinclined to believe that the article has anything to with with /real/ science.
I have no doubt that it is possible for someone with religious belief to appropriately use the scientific method. I just don't think it's very likely.
Science isn't a belief as much as it is analytical method for approaching a problem. I really don't care what any other people want to believe as long as they keep their nonsense out of my life. I'm particularly annoyed with a city bylaw regulating business hours on Sundays.
In any case it's a horrible title and I'd think it was deliberately chosen to give the wrong impression.
Great post; you even singled out the one rational point in his entire post (aside from the fact that the US has a lower population density, which makes mass transit less economical for us.)
It's also quite surprising to find out that jmerlin's original post is +5 insightful and his followups are "informative," while our responses are +1 troll or redundant. Maybe these words don't mean what I thought they did...
..besides, those were only ordinary whippets. What we're talking about here is in a whole new class, Whippets of Doom!
-- thinkyhead software and media
Bueller....
Bueller....
Bueller....
Bueller....
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
We in America have a long tradition of distrusting our politicians. I believe this is a generally sound principle as most politicians resemble the results of a well used petri dish.
That being said, we don't all believe that this is some conspiracy in order to tax us. However, we do believe that the government will use this as an excuse to tax the ever living crap out of use. It isn't necessarily all some conspiracy to tax us, but we are pretty sure it will end up with us having to hand over part of our livers to the government every year to pay for this.
And don't come at me with some argument about Cap and Trade not ending up costing more. It doesn't matter whether it will transform industry or not, only that the government will make use of this to insert their sticky fingers deeper into our wallets.
Paranoiad? Yeah, probably, but we have a tax on telephone service that dates back to the Spanish American War. So it isn't that big of a stretch to imagine our government bending us over and giving us a long hard tax over and over again.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
And I'm sorry if you're offended by ads.
I'm not offended by ads. I'm offended by hypocrisy.
You say you did it so that you wouldn't have to repeat yourself, but you're still repeating yourself. Your goal seems to be driving traffic to your blog, and not reducing the need to repeat yourself as you state.
And why? Who are you? You're not an authority. You, like me, are some random idiot on the internet.
NO it wouldn't be in conflict. It can be but that doesn't make it a constant problem. The only time it would be in conflict is when it is replacing the scientific method when the scientific method was claimed to of been deployed. Both faith and the scientific method have places in society but neither is a full time requirement.
The disregards are small and limited in regards to science and the base of knowledge around it. It's also small in the amounts of people in religion who do it. Science actually started in religious universities. They are not incompatible.
And I;m merely stating that your concerns are unfounded and shooting or ignoring the messenger instead of the message is not a valid point of debate. You are being blinded by your extreme views which is allowing your ignorance to triumph. You can be skeptical of the claims but there is nothing to suggest the source is biased and lying or anything. IF the facts don't pan out, then you will have a valid concern over the content instead of bashing it for the messenger.
It happens all the time. Your lack of knowledge or ignorance is proving your own bias. About 40% of scientist do believe in god and Only 52 percent of scientists identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation. That is something completely counter to your opinion.
Science is a belief for some. Take a look at the people claiming biological evolution theory as a whole is fact. Obviously this violates the scientific method in several places because it doesn't allow us to increase our knowledge or the possibility of falsification. It's even more problematic considering that when you separate evolution into adaptation and speciation, we have no no empirical evidence of it's existence without mucking with the definition of species in order to show it. Now it's likely that it's close enough to one day be proven right, but as of now, these people claiming it is fact instead of probable or likely are employing the very same belief system and mental processing as with the any religion and faith.
I also do not agree with codifying religion into laws. But I have no disagreement with someone taking time off to attend church or a business coming to it's own conclusion to shut down on Sunday. The Idea of closing business on sunday is derived from religion but is also derived from many other customs including long distance traveling. Animals like horses and such will not cover as much distance without a full day of rest. Humans marching in the military seem to operate better with at least one full day of rest too. Picking Sunday could be conveniently tied to religions (although the Seventh-day Adventist would probably disagree), it does have roots in practical measures to take at least
Well, I try not to repeat myself. But people keep repeating arguments that I specifically address in the sixth paragraph of the article, and discuss in more detail in sections 7(f) and 7(g). I suspect the repetition is more annoying for me than it is for you, because I had to research these issues at length, type nearly 50 pages of explanations that attempt to take a very complicated subject in modern physics down to the level at which the general public might understand it, and then provide links to the peer-reviewed articles that are the basis of this science. All you had to do was click on the link, see the first picture, and stop reading before the sixth paragraph where I discuss the claim you made.
But I'm sad to see that you didn't address any of the science I've discussed, instead asserting that I'm trying to pass myself off as an authority. The very title of my website should be proof that I'm not, but in that article I also repeatedly tried to get people to focus on the actual scientific evidence rather than trying to identify "authorities" or "consensus." Science isn't about authority, it's about developing models to predict new phenomena, and rigorously testing them in peer-reviewed journal articles.
See, my actual goal is to try to find another scientist who disagrees with the science behind abrupt climate change. I'm desperately searching for someone who disagrees with me, but does so in a polite manner while focusing on the science and discussing evidence. Are you that person?
The next Dead or Phish show will be soooooo filled with guilt....
The only thing wrong about that report is the focus on nitrous oxide instead of hydrogen. Remember all the impetus toward a Hydrogen Economy? Well, hydrogen handling technologies are not perfect and do leak slightly (not dangerous at ground level). But all that leaking hydrogen will head straight up, and the ozone in the ozone layer happens to be "hypergolic" with hydrogen (reacts on contact).
What a beautiful troll, my hat is off to you. Arguing that your country is already doing its part in solving the climate change problem because you (a) consume more energy per capita than other countries and (b) produce enough renewable energy to power a country of a whopping 1/33.2 of your own size. Spice it up with the old "we need our cars more than you do since our country is so BIG, and I pretend to be oblivious that the country I am comparing with has half the population density of my own", and you're right up there with the classic "the moon is a liberal myth" troll.
I still find it difficult to understand that someone could be so analytical in one part of their life and entertain irrational dogma in another.
Galileo's work in astronomy considered heresy and so all his works from that point on were banned. There may have only been two or three people involved in the actual decision making but would you believe that anyone with these beliefs would make their own decision after the Pope declared them heresy?
I'd think this tainted a large population perception on the basic mechanics of our universe for generations. Not something I'd call small.
Perhaps my perception of religious is tainted by my own experiences and I never tried to imply that I was unbiased. I don't think that makes my skepticism misplaced. I wouldn't trust an atheist to give me a unbiased opinion on religion.
To take anything as an absolute truth is fairly foolish. I'd likely categorize people such as this slightly less annoying than religious people. I'm not familiar enough with evolution theory to give a proper argument but I was under the impression that speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html To be honest I don't really care about the origins of life as I don't expect the question to be settled in my lifetime or that would have a marked impact on how I live my life.
Correction: "asserting" should read "implying." My bad.
Perhaps they do not see it as irrational or have other reasons for entertaining it. Most people can compartmentalize pretty well. It's as simple as saying in this we do that and in that we do this. Even kids can do this pretty well as you see them adapting to different controls in video games and so on.
The problem with Galileo was that he didn't have sufficient proof of his theories and taught them anyways. The bigger picture is- does anyone still believe the earth is at the center of the universe? Does the church still make that claim (a claim that wasn't made in the bible BTW)? Obviously, this is proof that religion is not unbending. Some people might be- but as well should know, some is not all.
Actually, your bias is presenting a problem because your skepticism contains tenets that are completely unfounded outside of it. As I have shown, there are quite a few scientist who believe in a god and quite a few more who participate in a religion in some form or another. Religion is philosophy and can be compartmentalized away from science and the same for science. They really do not need to connect.
I thought you would be skeptical of an Atheist pushing a religion. Talk Origins is basically that. However, if you read my statements, The speciation aspect of evolution hasn't been observed without messing with the definition of species. You will find that the site you referenced lists several definitions of species. You will also find that these definitions often do not stand up to the simplest real life scenarios. For instance, Able to interbreed with offspring able to do the same is a concept well founded in the definitions but when they cite instances of speciation, they no longer look at able and focus on does not interbreed. Ironically, this would mean that homosexuals would be a different species because they choose not to interbreed. But you will find points on that site that declare salamanders as speciation events because they choose not to interbreed. They also claim that bacteria which develops defensive mechanisms which destroy the same bacteria without the same mutations is a speciation event. However, this would mean that two waring countries would become separate species because they kill the other side instead of breeding with them. There is also the claim that any geological or natural boundary would create speciation but that's sort of ridiculous when you have to call a Collie Puppy in New Yo
So something only counts as causing a problem if it's making bigger holes, but being the most significant thing slowing down the recovery is fine? Great logic. If the US budget deficit was falling at $1/year would you say "it's falling, problem solved. No further action should be required"? Thought not.
TFA doesn't say this that the recovery is too slow. Nor does it say how much of a problem NO is, just that it is the biggest remaining threat. It does say that we are still in the process of phasing out HCFCs, i.e. we haven't done all that is already planned to deal with the today's threat. So at least based on the TFA, then no, no further action is required.
And BTW: your analogy is bad. The ozone hole isn't analogous to the deficit, it's analogous to the national debt. The recovery is analogous to a budget surplus.
lol
I have not felt this good since the last Full Moon.
All cows eat grass!
Why so cirrus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud
NO is nitric oxide, a vasodilator. N2O is nitrous oxide (laughing gas). There's also nitrogen dioxide, NO2. It gets pretty confusing.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If the US budget deficit was RISING at 1 MILLION dollars a year, that would be such a vast improvment over the current situation that I would be dancing in the street and getting stinking drunk!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
"Christian Science" is a specific religious group in the United States. The name, reminds me, however, of old Mike Myers's SNL skits where he portrays a middle-aged New York lady hosting a talk show, and at some point, she starts losing emotional control ("I'm getting verklempt," (don't know if that last word is quite correct, but (s)he always said something like that), "let me give you a topic to discuss amongst yourselves. . . the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire - discuss.")
Well, near as I've ever been able to figure, "Christian Science" is neither Christian, nor Scientific. Discuss.
(P.S. The 'newspaper' run by the Christian Scientists (that is, the Christian Science Monitor newspaper) seems to have earned something of a reputation as being a decent source of journalism, regardless of its backers; I believe the Christian Science church does not exert much/any editorial influence over the newspaper staff, but I could be wrong).
Try again, Sweden has about half the population density of the US.
Note that "NOx" also includes NO2, or nitrogen dioxide. Good point, though.
Aviation and the global atmosphere: a special report of IPCC Working Groups ...
By Joyce E. Penner
Comments that NOx released in the troposphere (where the bulk of weather occurs) is a few weeks. Releases in the lower stratosphere has residence times on the order of months to years. If NOx is significant as an ozone depleter, the source would be primarily jets and natural sources that inject gas into the stratosphere (some wildfires, volcanoes)
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
Imagine if we could break apart the US into 50 smaller pieces about the same size and population as Sweden?
If each state had taken steps to reduce the amount of imported oil and dirty power in the past 8 years, it would have helped the economy, and eliminated our need for imported oil from hostile regions.
The right had their chance at smaller government, state controlled, renewable energy infrastructure. But, they decided to go with the status quo because everything was going ok for them at the time, and they weren't worried about what would happen 10 years from now. It's not just if CO2 is or isn't causing warming, the extra CO2 is having an effect on stone buildings, ocean acidity, and people's health in urban areas. The extra pollution that goes along with coal power plants means that our cheap energy has a bigger cost.
And adding a tax on CO2 would only cost me around $100/year, not the huge numbers that they were throwing around. But, I agree that it should be the government, and not individuals who are profiting from the regulation of CO2, the government needs all the extra revenue they can get. But, I'm sure people would have issues with that too.
Anyone who blindly repeats this old Limbaugh canard about using scare tactics to get funding instantly reveals themselves as knowing nothing about the research community or science. Most geophysical research is funded on a steady, ongoing bases because it is basic research, not results driven. Lying about results will not get you more funding, it will get you less.
The problem is with communicating to the public about complex, slowly developing issues. If you can't match the latest blockbuster movie for excitement, then the important issues don't get airtime.
Are you referring to the ramming of a US E4 AWACS survailing the Chinese testing of the supercavitating torpedoes purchased from the Russian? Russia who then allowed the sailors aboard the Kirsk to sufficate rather than reviling they were training Chinese sailors to operate the supercavitating torpedoes?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's like you have settings that can be adjusted, but never adjust them to see what they do. What a waste of consciousness, if you don't occasionally hack it.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Really? Wikipedia says Sweden has 21 people per square kilometer, while the United States has about 31. So the overall average in Sweden is something like ~67% of the United States. But that article explicitly notes that Sweden has "a considerably higher density in the southern half of the country." I doubt that asymmetry is present to the same degree in the United States. The fact that Sweden gets 45% of its power from nuclear is great, though, and something I wish we'll be able to do in the United States.
I think the asymmetry is present in the US too. Population is concentrated along the coasts, around the great lakes and down the Mississippi valley. The Rockies and Great Basin are pretty sparsely populated with the exception of population centers like Salt Lake City. If you throw in Alaska it makes for pretty asymmetrical population in the US.
Okay, sure. I don't really know what metric to use in this situation. (Population density on the whole isn't useful because it ignores the fact that Alaska is almost completely uninhabited.) My impression of cities in the U.S. and Europe is that the U.S. has really crappy public transportation and is much more sparsely populated. I'd assumed these were causally related, but it's also possible that our much lower gas prices have contributed to our complacency. Also, I've never been to Sweden so I don't have first hand experience-- I guess I was assuming that they'd be similar to European cities but that was pretty dumb of me.
Sorry for not remembering the exact numbers, but my "half" still was a lot closer than your "the US has a lower population density".
I didn't mean offense. You're right: your version was more accurate. Thanks for correcting me.