Considering that the original source of the fossil fuels was the biosphere sequestering the carbon over thousands and millions of years I see no reason to believe it will happen any faster now unless we proactively help the process with things such as biochar. Even that at best will take centuries.
You are totally misunderstanding what I am saying (on purpose?). If you removed all of the CO2 from the atmosphere it would quickly get replaced by outgassing from the oceans, presumably at a slightly lower level because you've removed some carbon from the carbon cycle.. Look up the concept of partial pressure. Individual molecules may cycle through the various parts of the carbon cycle but a balance between the various parts remains. The parts of the carbon cycle that actually semipermanently remove carbon from the active cycle such as rock weathering and the burial of biological materials takes thousands of years to act. Therefore the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain higher than it otherwise would be for a thousand years or more because of the elevated levels of carbon in the overall carbon cycle.
Yes, I flirted with libertarianism for a bit in the 1980's but like all pure ideologies it assumes everyone will go along with the program because of it's beauty. That's never going to happen because humans are far too heterogeneous. I'm too pragmatic any more to get tied up in ideology preferring just to get the job done by whatever reasonable means possible.
Isn't it the mother who is slave to the fetus? It's the one that is drawing resources out of her. My position is that until the fetus is capable of living independently of the mother then it's just a part of the flesh of the mother.
Of course it is not. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a function of the total carbon in the carbon cycle and the balance between the reservoirs. If you increase the total carbon in the active carbon cycle then the level in the atmosphere rises until the slower acting reservoirs such as the geosphere (rock weathering) that act over thousands of years absorb it.
As a sys admin I file some things like software feature enablers, communications with vendor support and documentation of the sys admin things I do (for the yearly review). But I also search the inbox for things of a more transient nature.
Solyndra was less than 2% of a $38 billion loan guarantee program. Not that big a deal. If enough of the others pan out it will more than make of for the loss from Solyndra.
I think you are overestimating how much area needs to be covered by solar cells. A couple of years ago I read that it would take an area of about 40x40 miles (or maybe it was kilometers) to supply all the energy used by humans around the world. Split up on the different continents that's not that much area.
Obama has decided that all investments in Oil industries will go to foreign countries. After funding their development, we can then buy from them at inflated prices. However, American oil production is to be halted, in every possible way.
The only problem with that line is that US petroleum production is higher under Obama than it ever was under Bush II.
How long a particular CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere is not the issue. The issue is that we've increased the total carbon in the active carbon cycle. There is a balance between the various reservoirs in the carbon cycle and when you add carbon to one of them it rebalances between all of them. So the level has gone up in the atmosphere (CO2), the hydrosphere (ocean acidification), the biosphere and the lesser reservoirs. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain elevated to maintain the balance even though individual molecules cycle through the different reservoirs.
There is a correlation between the level of CO2 and the level of water vapor in the atmosphere. The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is totally dependent on temperature. The temperature bump that CO2 causes increases water vapor in the atmosphere as a feedback. Water vapor is about 4% higher now than it was in the 1960's because of global warming.
Still, in the very long run, we're coming up from an ice age and temperatures will probably rise by a couple degrees over hundreds of years.
The last ice age (glaciation) ended around 10,000 years ago. Temperature peaked during the Holocene optimum about 8,000 years ago and have been slowly cooling since then.
You talk as if climate change is just something magical. Yes, the climate changes, but not without reason. The Holocene Optimum around 8,000 years ago and the cooling since then were largely due to the stages of the cycles within Milankovitch cycles and the feedbacks from those. The null hypothesis would be that the climate of Earth will continue to respond as it always has to the inputs and feedbacks it receives.
It's lame to reply to your own comment but this is kind of a group response to all of the AC's and others who responded to the original comment.
I'm not saying the results from CERN are wrong, just that I'm skeptical. It will take more research to confirm or refute those results. I will be most interested in what they find. One thing I did when I first heard the result was calculate the distance involved. One foot is 1 nanosecond. The neutrinos appeared to arrive 60 nanoseconds ahead of schedule so that's 60 feet or 18.288 meters. I wondered if perhaps they had made a mistake in measuring the distance exactly enough over 732 km.
It would be incredibly interesting if the CERN results turn out to be true but I'm not jumping on the bandwagon just yet.
I don't know if I buy tachyonic neutrinos. We'll see. The reason that the neutrinos from the supernova beat the light was because there were neutrinos headed out of the star before the surface of the star even knew something was going on. They barely interact with matter.
After I saw this quote I figured they'd have to find some error in their observations. (Emphasis added.)
"...If the observation is confirmed, it may be the most important discovery in science in the last 100 years.
"However, a big fly in the ointment is the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which sits just outside our galaxy 168,000 light-years from Earth. It was first seen by the naked eye on February 24, 1987. Three hours before the visible light reached Earth, a handful of neutrinos were detected in three independent underground detectors. If the CERN result is correct, they should have arrived in 1982. So, if I were a wagering man, I would bet the effect will go away because of some systematic error no one has yet been able to think of."
No, the real point of cutting assistance to ACORN was that they registered people to vote that the Republicans didn't want voting. The prostitute thing was just a set up smoke screen that had no basis in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't saying that I support him, just that he's not quite as insane as some of the others.
Considering that the original source of the fossil fuels was the biosphere sequestering the carbon over thousands and millions of years I see no reason to believe it will happen any faster now unless we proactively help the process with things such as biochar. Even that at best will take centuries.
You are totally misunderstanding what I am saying (on purpose?). If you removed all of the CO2 from the atmosphere it would quickly get replaced by outgassing from the oceans, presumably at a slightly lower level because you've removed some carbon from the carbon cycle.. Look up the concept of partial pressure. Individual molecules may cycle through the various parts of the carbon cycle but a balance between the various parts remains. The parts of the carbon cycle that actually semipermanently remove carbon from the active cycle such as rock weathering and the burial of biological materials takes thousands of years to act. Therefore the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain higher than it otherwise would be for a thousand years or more because of the elevated levels of carbon in the overall carbon cycle.
There are passages in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments that imply that life begins when you draw your first breath.
Yes, I flirted with libertarianism for a bit in the 1980's but like all pure ideologies it assumes everyone will go along with the program because of it's beauty. That's never going to happen because humans are far too heterogeneous. I'm too pragmatic any more to get tied up in ideology preferring just to get the job done by whatever reasonable means possible.
Isn't it the mother who is slave to the fetus? It's the one that is drawing resources out of her. My position is that until the fetus is capable of living independently of the mother then it's just a part of the flesh of the mother.
Historically when an incumbent get's primaried it tends to weaken them enough that they will lose the general election.
And nobody ever even mentions Buddy Roemer who may be the sanest of the whole bunch.
Of course it is not. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a function of the total carbon in the carbon cycle and the balance between the reservoirs. If you increase the total carbon in the active carbon cycle then the level in the atmosphere rises until the slower acting reservoirs such as the geosphere (rock weathering) that act over thousands of years absorb it.
As a sys admin I file some things like software feature enablers, communications with vendor support and documentation of the sys admin things I do (for the yearly review). But I also search the inbox for things of a more transient nature.
Solyndra was less than 2% of a $38 billion loan guarantee program. Not that big a deal. If enough of the others pan out it will more than make of for the loss from Solyndra.
There are lots of backup generators and remote installations that use diesel for power. Not much grid power though.
I think you are overestimating how much area needs to be covered by solar cells. A couple of years ago I read that it would take an area of about 40x40 miles (or maybe it was kilometers) to supply all the energy used by humans around the world. Split up on the different continents that's not that much area.
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (Trenberth 2009)
The travesty that Trenberth was talking about is that we don't have enough instrumentation to determine where the heat has gone.
Obama has decided that all investments in Oil industries will go to foreign countries. After funding their development, we can then buy from them at inflated prices. However, American oil production is to be halted, in every possible way.
The only problem with that line is that US petroleum production is higher under Obama than it ever was under Bush II.
How long a particular CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere is not the issue. The issue is that we've increased the total carbon in the active carbon cycle. There is a balance between the various reservoirs in the carbon cycle and when you add carbon to one of them it rebalances between all of them. So the level has gone up in the atmosphere (CO2), the hydrosphere (ocean acidification), the biosphere and the lesser reservoirs. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain elevated to maintain the balance even though individual molecules cycle through the different reservoirs.
There is a correlation between the level of CO2 and the level of water vapor in the atmosphere. The level of water vapor in the atmosphere is totally dependent on temperature. The temperature bump that CO2 causes increases water vapor in the atmosphere as a feedback. Water vapor is about 4% higher now than it was in the 1960's because of global warming.
Still, in the very long run, we're coming up from an ice age and temperatures will probably rise by a couple degrees over hundreds of years.
The last ice age (glaciation) ended around 10,000 years ago. Temperature peaked during the Holocene optimum about 8,000 years ago and have been slowly cooling since then.
You talk as if climate change is just something magical. Yes, the climate changes, but not without reason. The Holocene Optimum around 8,000 years ago and the cooling since then were largely due to the stages of the cycles within Milankovitch cycles and the feedbacks from those. The null hypothesis would be that the climate of Earth will continue to respond as it always has to the inputs and feedbacks it receives.
It's lame to reply to your own comment but this is kind of a group response to all of the AC's and others who responded to the original comment.
I'm not saying the results from CERN are wrong, just that I'm skeptical. It will take more research to confirm or refute those results. I will be most interested in what they find. One thing I did when I first heard the result was calculate the distance involved. One foot is 1 nanosecond. The neutrinos appeared to arrive 60 nanoseconds ahead of schedule so that's 60 feet or 18.288 meters. I wondered if perhaps they had made a mistake in measuring the distance exactly enough over 732 km.
It would be incredibly interesting if the CERN results turn out to be true but I'm not jumping on the bandwagon just yet.
Well, when I said it wasn't particularly cold on the surface I was referring to the Arctic region, not Norther Europe.
Dueling anecdotes: Ask the people in the South-Central US if it's been hot and dry this year.
I'm not one of them but I know some who are.
I don't know if I buy tachyonic neutrinos. We'll see. The reason that the neutrinos from the supernova beat the light was because there were neutrinos headed out of the star before the surface of the star even knew something was going on. They barely interact with matter.
That's only half of the year, the other half of the year they're always in the Light.
After I saw this quote I figured they'd have to find some error in their observations. (Emphasis added.)
"...If the observation is confirmed, it may be the most important discovery in science in the last 100 years.
"However, a big fly in the ointment is the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which sits just outside our galaxy 168,000 light-years from Earth. It was first seen by the naked eye on February 24, 1987. Three hours before the visible light reached Earth, a handful of neutrinos were detected in three independent underground detectors. If the CERN result is correct, they should have arrived in 1982. So, if I were a wagering man, I would bet the effect will go away because of some systematic error no one has yet been able to think of."
(Quote stolen from Quark Soup)
No, the real point of cutting assistance to ACORN was that they registered people to vote that the Republicans didn't want voting. The prostitute thing was just a set up smoke screen that had no basis in reality.