Timothy McVeigh's attack, as horrific as it was, was a direct response for the events at Ruby Ridge and Waco where the government was directly responsible for the deaths of numerous innocents and then tried to cover it up.
You say that as if McVeigh was justified in what he did. What's the same between McVeigh and this guy is it appears he felt wronged by the government and chose an inappropriate way to show displeasure. (How's that for understating it?)
Re: $375 Million and the Price-Anderson act. So far the Fukushima disaster has cost the Japanese over $240 Billion. If something even close were to happen to a US reactor we the people are on the hook for any costs over $375 Million. No nuclear power plants will be built if it's left only to the free market.
The poster must think Obama's a communist. For the new definition of communism that is. Anyone who isn't in favor of privatizing everything has at least communist leanings.
All research with a clear short term benefit in mind. How much research into quantum computing has Intel done? That's all university research at this stage with probably mostly government funding.
Well, if you don't understand how uncertainty is quantified in science then I would say you don't know what real science is. It's a key concept in science.
How can you make a prediction when it's impossible to know ahead of time how much CO2 will be added to the atmosphere or what the Sun is going to do in its cycles and a number of other things? Instead you create various scenarios for reasonable possibilities and base your expectations on those.
If you find 100 other errors like the Himalayan Glacier typo in the IPCC AR4 then maybe I'll start wondering about it. In a report with literally thousands of predictions from hundreds of authors 4 or 5 mistakes isn't enough to take it down.
Corporations (for the most part) aren't evil, they're amoral. Their eye is on the bottom line and the next quarterly report. They don't spend a lot of time considering the long term effects of their actions. From a (natural) human point of view some of the effects are evil.
The instruments are probably not designed to be deployed from an aircraft. I imagine a couple of destroyers accompanying the research vessel would be pretty effective though.
The visible component of the Sun's light that gets absorbed rather than reflected gets converted to heat and is re-radiated mostly in the IR band. White roofs reflect more and absorb less and the reflected light in the visible range mostly just leaves the atmosphere without interacting with anything.
Most of the reflected energy is in the visible light range that the atmosphere is mostly transparent to. Once it goes back out of the atmosphere it's not heating up anything on Earth.
I think the point of painting the roof white is to reflect the visible light that makes up most of the Sun's incoming radiation. By reflecting it in the visible range it goes back out of the atmosphere with little energy being absorbed at all. So I didn't check your links but did you investigate the reflectivity of the paint relative to the Sun's total incoming radiation spectrum or just in the IR range?
Well, actually white roofs reflect more light in the visible light range that greenhouse gases don't capture rather than absorbing the incoming solar radiation and re-radiating it in the infrared range that greenhouse gases do capture. So the more a roof reflects visible light the more it helps the global warming problem.
Climate scientists have moved beyond whether CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. You can read the signature of CO2 capturing radiant energy in the spectrum of the planet. I have read the IPCC AR4 Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers. What's your point? You don't like the way they're simplifying the uncertainty for non-scientists? If they can't be virtually certain about something but only consider it very likely we can ignore the risk? Science doesn't work in absolutes (except zero).
The WG1 report is all about the science and doesn't get into danger, it's Working Group II where that part comes in. That's where they examine the probable effects of global warming.
As opposed to Bush II raising the debt ceiling (7 times in 8 years), lowering taxes, and increasing spending like a drunken sailor. Choose your poison.
(Most) Republicans only care about the debt ceiling when there's a Democrat in the White House.
The costs are already covered if they can sail their research vessel in those waters. Because it's too dangerous for them to go in there on their own they're asking for some help getting the buoys distributed. I guess someone will have to step up and eat the additional costs but I imagine it could be considered training time for some naval vessel.
You need to look into things a bit more deeply than you apparently do. Please give me a quote from Phil Jones where he admits manipulating data for other than valid scientific reasons. Does one mistake (Himalayan glaciers) in the IPCC AR4 report invalidate the thousands of other points in the report? That's like getting a F on a final exam because you missed one question out of 100. The IPCC had nothing to do with the climate refugees statement. That was a think tank associated with the UN. And I believe their statement was "up to 50 million climate refugees". Did they put a minimum value on it? The sulfur in coal does cause a cooling effect as SO2 in the atmosphere but it doesn't last nearly as long as the CO2 does so in the long run coal burning unequivocally causes warming.
Please show me the science that shows increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not cause a warming effect. If you can give me some good science showing that then I'll join you. Until then you're just someone who puts economics and politics over reality.
It's also a rather large area of ocean that needs to be covered which requires quite a few ships. Maybe one aircraft carrier could do it but that's still a big commitment. Something like a modernized PT boat would be pretty effective I imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
Timothy McVeigh's attack, as horrific as it was, was a direct response for the events at Ruby Ridge and Waco where the government was directly responsible for the deaths of numerous innocents and then tried to cover it up.
You say that as if McVeigh was justified in what he did. What's the same between McVeigh and this guy is it appears he felt wronged by the government and chose an inappropriate way to show displeasure. (How's that for understating it?)
How fast is the media in the US going to drop the story once they figure out it wasn't Islamic terrorism?
Now that's in insightful comment.
Call it investing in the future. Not all investments work out but you never know unless you try.
Yes, I was too lazy to take the time look it up. I'd be interested is someone proved me wrong.
Re: $375 Million and the Price-Anderson act. So far the Fukushima disaster has cost the Japanese over $240 Billion. If something even close were to happen to a US reactor we the people are on the hook for any costs over $375 Million. No nuclear power plants will be built if it's left only to the free market.
The poster must think Obama's a communist. For the new definition of communism that is. Anyone who isn't in favor of privatizing everything has at least communist leanings.
All research with a clear short term benefit in mind. How much research into quantum computing has Intel done? That's all university research at this stage with probably mostly government funding.
Well, if you don't understand how uncertainty is quantified in science then I would say you don't know what real science is. It's a key concept in science.
How can you make a prediction when it's impossible to know ahead of time how much CO2 will be added to the atmosphere or what the Sun is going to do in its cycles and a number of other things? Instead you create various scenarios for reasonable possibilities and base your expectations on those.
If you find 100 other errors like the Himalayan Glacier typo in the IPCC AR4 then maybe I'll start wondering about it. In a report with literally thousands of predictions from hundreds of authors 4 or 5 mistakes isn't enough to take it down.
Not only that but they serve as an error check on each other.
Corporations (for the most part) aren't evil, they're amoral. Their eye is on the bottom line and the next quarterly report. They don't spend a lot of time considering the long term effects of their actions. From a (natural) human point of view some of the effects are evil.
The instruments are probably not designed to be deployed from an aircraft. I imagine a couple of destroyers accompanying the research vessel would be pretty effective though.
The visible component of the Sun's light that gets absorbed rather than reflected gets converted to heat and is re-radiated mostly in the IR band. White roofs reflect more and absorb less and the reflected light in the visible range mostly just leaves the atmosphere without interacting with anything.
Most of the reflected energy is in the visible light range that the atmosphere is mostly transparent to. Once it goes back out of the atmosphere it's not heating up anything on Earth.
I think the point of painting the roof white is to reflect the visible light that makes up most of the Sun's incoming radiation. By reflecting it in the visible range it goes back out of the atmosphere with little energy being absorbed at all. So I didn't check your links but did you investigate the reflectivity of the paint relative to the Sun's total incoming radiation spectrum or just in the IR range?
Well, actually white roofs reflect more light in the visible light range that greenhouse gases don't capture rather than absorbing the incoming solar radiation and re-radiating it in the infrared range that greenhouse gases do capture. So the more a roof reflects visible light the more it helps the global warming problem.
I don't disagree with you. I was just trying to provide some balance for the GP.
Divide and conquer is the fascist/corporate mantra.
Climate scientists have moved beyond whether CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming. You can read the signature of CO2 capturing radiant energy in the spectrum of the planet. I have read the IPCC AR4 Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers. What's your point? You don't like the way they're simplifying the uncertainty for non-scientists? If they can't be virtually certain about something but only consider it very likely we can ignore the risk? Science doesn't work in absolutes (except zero).
The WG1 report is all about the science and doesn't get into danger, it's Working Group II where that part comes in. That's where they examine the probable effects of global warming.
Don't forget the torpedoes. Tune them to follow the arrrrrgh's!
As opposed to Bush II raising the debt ceiling (7 times in 8 years), lowering taxes, and increasing spending like a drunken sailor. Choose your poison.
(Most) Republicans only care about the debt ceiling when there's a Democrat in the White House.
The costs are already covered if they can sail their research vessel in those waters. Because it's too dangerous for them to go in there on their own they're asking for some help getting the buoys distributed. I guess someone will have to step up and eat the additional costs but I imagine it could be considered training time for some naval vessel.
You need to look into things a bit more deeply than you apparently do. Please give me a quote from Phil Jones where he admits manipulating data for other than valid scientific reasons. Does one mistake (Himalayan glaciers) in the IPCC AR4 report invalidate the thousands of other points in the report? That's like getting a F on a final exam because you missed one question out of 100. The IPCC had nothing to do with the climate refugees statement. That was a think tank associated with the UN. And I believe their statement was "up to 50 million climate refugees". Did they put a minimum value on it? The sulfur in coal does cause a cooling effect as SO2 in the atmosphere but it doesn't last nearly as long as the CO2 does so in the long run coal burning unequivocally causes warming.
Please show me the science that shows increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not cause a warming effect. If you can give me some good science showing that then I'll join you. Until then you're just someone who puts economics and politics over reality.
Facts are not something I associate with climatedepot.
It's also a rather large area of ocean that needs to be covered which requires quite a few ships. Maybe one aircraft carrier could do it but that's still a big commitment. Something like a modernized PT boat would be pretty effective I imagine.
Name me one Presidential candidate recently who hasn't exaggerated to make a point. Maybe Ron Paul but I doubt it.
It's damn near impossible to find an "anti-AGW" statement that has not been proven false or at least ridiculously exaggerated.