I'll see your 'Duh' and raise you a 'not really news'.
See this BBC News article from 2000 which describes how, "part of the hippocampus grew larger as the taxi drivers spent more time in the job." Navigating the streets of London for a job requires more spacial memory and reasoning so that bit of the brain grows.
Hardly a breakthrough or a suprise, unless I'm missing something?
It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time...
Yes there is wind all the time.
Not in one place, obviously, but by the time you've hooked up a shitload of turbines spread across thousands of miles you largely mitigate the "it's not windy here" problem.
Obviously, yes. (The analogy was regarding a gas heater with no mention of thermostats so, all things being equal, if you insulate and turn up the gas the temperature will rise more than just turning up the heat.)
Poor analogy in the first place but I ran with it anyway!
I take your point about the complexity of the Earth's systems, I was keeping things within the analogy of the house in my previous post, however there are some certainties:
Greenhouse (CO2, methane and water vapour etc.) gases trap heat.
The amount of them in the atmosphere is increasing due to human activity.
Many of the feedback systems you mention are positive and hence more likely to increase temperature or greenhouse gases. (Sure, some are negative)
Given two Earths which are identical in every regard, one with double the CO2 than the other, which do you expect to be hotter ON AVERAGE? Unless you are denying basic physics and chemistry, it'll be the added CO2 one. Sure, parts of one high CO2 one may be cooler, but that's the way it goes with systems with "numerous major compensating and competing mechanisms, such as many diverse water vapor cycles and cloud circulation patterns, deep ocean currents, solar inputs, and so on" as you say. Remember also that many feedbacks operate on the order of decades to epoch timescales. We don't.
"Making decisions based upon such broadly flawed models isn't exactly the most obvious choice"
And you know all models, past, present and future will be useless for helping guide policy? What would you prefer? Unless you are a climatologist or a mathematician well read in such simulations, it's not really wise to dismiss them all. Can they ever be 100% accurate? Nope. Can they be used to predict global, long term trends? Well, yes because local accuracy is less important than those global trends. Will they get better over time? Yes, absolutely.
We know practically and theoretically that CO2 has an 'greenhouse' effect. We just don't know HOW MUCH when all those factors and feedbacks you mentioned are added in. Yet.
I'll say it again: Human-created CO2 affects the climate. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. None, really. None. How much it affects it, when and with what interactions is what all the study is doing right now.
And what's with the political rant about the public sector? I preferred things a few years back when the situation wasn't so ridiculously politicised - at least science could be discussed without it becoming an excuse or a threat to 'our way of life' (tm).
It doesnt take a genius to work out that if you TURN UP the gas valve on a heater, IT GETS HOTTER.
Someone with the same lack of genius should also be able to spot that if you INSULATE your house, IT GETS HOTTER.
This is man-made global warming in a nutshell: we are adding insulation to our house and the sun is just doing its thing.
We (anyone with skin/eyes & all the clever genius types at the IPCC) KNOW the sun has an big effect. We (anyone who has basic physics/chemistry knowledge or wants to test with a fish tank, some gases, a heat lamp and a thermometer) KNOW our added insulation (greenhouse gases) has an effect too.
The question, and any remaining doubts anyone has, is regarding HOW MUCH humans have affected the climate. That we have, to a lesser or greater effect, is NOT in doubt. That humans will continue to 'insulate' the earth if we continue releasing greenhouse gases is absolutely certain. The sun will merrily carry on doing its thing regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should you ever, with all this parallel hardware, ever be waiting for your computer?'
For a lot of problems, for the same reason that some guy who just married 8 brides will still have to wait for his baby.
Impotency?
I'll see your 'Duh' and raise you a 'not really news'.
See this BBC News article from 2000 which describes how, "part of the hippocampus grew larger as the taxi drivers spent more time in the job." Navigating the streets of London for a job requires more spacial memory and reasoning so that bit of the brain grows.
Hardly a breakthrough or a suprise, unless I'm missing something?
You're so right - ubiquitous, clean nuclear power would be awesome!!!
It's just a shame that clean nuclear power does not exist.
It just couldn't simply because there isn't wind all the time...
Yes there is wind all the time.
Not in one place, obviously, but by the time you've hooked up a shitload of turbines spread across thousands of miles you largely mitigate the "it's not windy here" problem.
And in Europe, on the rare occasions when whole countries are becalmed, power is sent along interconnectors from neighbouring countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7598212.stm
It's always windy somewhere.
Obviously, yes. (The analogy was regarding a gas heater with no mention of thermostats so, all things being equal, if you insulate and turn up the gas the temperature will rise more than just turning up the heat.) Poor analogy in the first place but I ran with it anyway!
I take your point about the complexity of the Earth's systems, I was keeping things within the analogy of the house in my previous post, however there are some certainties:
Given two Earths which are identical in every regard, one with double the CO2 than the other, which do you expect to be hotter ON AVERAGE? Unless you are denying basic physics and chemistry, it'll be the added CO2 one. Sure, parts of one high CO2 one may be cooler, but that's the way it goes with systems with "numerous major compensating and competing mechanisms, such as many diverse water vapor cycles and cloud circulation patterns, deep ocean currents, solar inputs, and so on" as you say. Remember also that many feedbacks operate on the order of decades to epoch timescales. We don't.
And you know all models, past, present and future will be useless for helping guide policy? What would you prefer? Unless you are a climatologist or a mathematician well read in such simulations, it's not really wise to dismiss them all. Can they ever be 100% accurate? Nope. Can they be used to predict global, long term trends? Well, yes because local accuracy is less important than those global trends. Will they get better over time? Yes, absolutely.
We know practically and theoretically that CO2 has an 'greenhouse' effect. We just don't know HOW MUCH when all those factors and feedbacks you mentioned are added in. Yet.
I'll say it again: Human-created CO2 affects the climate. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. None, really. None. How much it affects it, when and with what interactions is what all the study is doing right now.
And what's with the political rant about the public sector? I preferred things a few years back when the situation wasn't so ridiculously politicised - at least science could be discussed without it becoming an excuse or a threat to 'our way of life' (tm).
Someone with the same lack of genius should also be able to spot that if you INSULATE your house, IT GETS HOTTER.
This is man-made global warming in a nutshell: we are adding insulation to our house and the sun is just doing its thing.
We (anyone with skin/eyes & all the clever genius types at the IPCC) KNOW the sun has an big effect. We (anyone who has basic physics/chemistry knowledge or wants to test with a fish tank, some gases, a heat lamp and a thermometer) KNOW our added insulation (greenhouse gases) has an effect too.
The question, and any remaining doubts anyone has, is regarding HOW MUCH humans have affected the climate. That we have, to a lesser or greater effect, is NOT in doubt. That humans will continue to 'insulate' the earth if we continue releasing greenhouse gases is absolutely certain. The sun will merrily carry on doing its thing regardless.