If you have no idea about the relative amounts of CO2 emitted by human and nonhuman sources, what on earth makes you think your opinion re AGW is anything other than random?
Exactly. Since green algae started taking carbon out of the air and other critters started eating them, burping, and farting the carbon in the carbon cycle has not been an issue in climate change. What we are looking at is taking the results of a hundred million years of plants taking carbon out of the carbon cycle and getting buried during the carboniferous period, during which the earth became cooler andless humid than it had been for the previous several billion years, and dumping a good fraction of that carbon back into the air over a century; and assuming that something will prevent the climate from returning to the hot, humid state it was in the last time there was this much carbon in the cycle.
Item the second; "this feedback" has already "kicked in"; the eenergy received from the sun is only enough to support a blackbody temperature of approximately minus eighteen degrees C, in the absence of atmosphere. CO2 alone is only enough to raise the global average temperature to about ten below; other gases raise it another few degrees but the feedback effect of water vapor raises the average temperature to positive 14 degrees C. Your vision of clouds as the negative feedback which will kick in at some unspecified point in the future to limit temperature rise to some magic number that will be low enough to save us from trouble violates observed reality; both anecdotal, most people having noticed that a cloudy night retains warmth better than a clear one when heat is radiated into space, and precisely quantified studies:
Well perhaps you deniers should share your better understanding of what AGW predicts with, for instance, the IPCC; they think that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'â"analogous to Venus-appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities." - http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf Thank God you guys know better than the researchers, not only the science, but even what they are theorizing.
The third choice should be: it is both anthropogenic and natural causes which are completely unknown and yet follow the course of our CO2 generation in lockstep and yet the sum of both processes does not exceed what could be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 alone so it's futile to reduce our CO2 production because this other unknown process is so unknown that for all we know it might stop following our CO2 output if we reduce it and instead just keep going up because climate scientists don't know everything, do they.
Even if the leaders of the radical right were only pretending to Christianity to get obedient followers, more shame on the Christian followers for letting themselves be led. Hard to believe Christ's message was to follow anybody claiming to represent Him, particularly when the message is in opposition to everything Jesus preached; nationalism, materialism, xenophobia, preemptive violence, punishment of the poor, etc. These guys are always repeating how the Devil is a liar and seduces you with sweet talk and so on, and yet they fall for the first line of bull that matches what they wish Jesus' message would be.
We're perfectly happy with the risk of climate change (cue a dozen comments proving my point) but one opinion from the legal department that somebody who violates all the warnings and gets a nosebleed will have grounds to sue can keep a cure for cancer off the market. See also "no vaccinations for my kids, I'm worried that they will catch autism"
Any trend which is specifically dependent upon the choice of starting point is hardly reliable. You seem to be missing the point, deliberately or obtusely, despite it being repeated for your benefit, that "downward trends" indistinguishable from the current one you seem so impressed by, literally have occurred every few years during the almost linear increase of the past 40 years. Unless you have some reason why this time it's different you might as well be telling us that you're convinced that this time, the sun won't come up tomorrow.
Let's see; keeping us from getting cholera etc from our drinking water, putting out fires, insuring bank accounts, reducing workplace injuries, keeping various toxins and organisms out of the food supply, maintaining safe and effective pharmaceuticals, creating and maintaining the highway system, funding basic scientific research, maintaining fiduciary responsibility in financial institutions, keeping the general incidence of public violence down, eliminating the high incidence of poverty among the elderly, keeping air travel safe, eliminating starvation, eliminating smallpox, polio, measles, reducing consumer fraud, the GI Bill, public libraries, vehicle registration, building codes, licensing of professionals, I.e. doctors, dentists, engineers, etc, soil conservation, stabilizing the business cycle, children's welfare, I.e.school lunches, head start, SCHIP, emergency services,... Sure, none of these are done perfectly, but they're done adequately for the function of society; for contrast look at all the countries which don't bother with these functions. It's great to be a rich person in the developing world, but not so great if you have no guarantee that your savings account won't vanish, or that the president's cousin won't steal your startup if it gets profitable, or that the steel you buy is of correct tensile strength, or that your employees are educated and healthy. These are tasks that private companies won't or can't take on for any amount, mostly due to the vast scales involved. The wonder is how well the government agencies do, with a hugely overworked and underpaid staff. Of course, the previous administration's attempts to privatize the military ended the suggestions that private companies could do that particular function better.
Some space truck driver who ate at a questionable space diner found a sudden biological emergency and pulled over to land on primitive earth and take a dump. And that's how microorganisms originated on earth.
Whereas employees of private companies are all aces, right? Whether it's the guys who came up with New Coke or the guys who came up with Windows 8 or the guys whodo the offshore drilling for BP in the Gulf or the guys behind whatever is the latest leak of millions of people's private records or the salesperson at the cellphone store waiting his shot at the used car sales biz or the guys who run cruise ship lines or........
Seriously. If you want a shrink you have to pay a fortune. If you want to go to confession that's a whole big deal. If you want to just vent your friends and family get bored after a while. But here are these guys who call you up and won't hang up on you no matter how you blather on as long as you don't get abusive. Try it. The limit seems to be 45 minutes, then they say goodbye and hang up.
"Times" does not equal RPM. Consider for example: "How many times did you boink your wife last night? Two? That's impossible!" On the other hand the "more" in 500 times more is redundant and confusing.
Slashdot Mirror
How do we fight caps usage?
If you have no idea about the relative amounts of CO2 emitted by human and nonhuman sources, what on earth makes you think your opinion re AGW is anything other than random?
Yeah, environmentalists stopped nuclear power. That and the tendency of nuclear plants to blow up once a decade.
Exactly. Since green algae started taking carbon out of the air and other critters started eating them, burping, and farting the carbon in the carbon cycle has not been an issue in climate change. What we are looking at is taking the results of a hundred million years of plants taking carbon out of the carbon cycle and getting buried during the carboniferous period, during which the earth became cooler andless humid than it had been for the previous several billion years, and dumping a good fraction of that carbon back into the air over a century; and assuming that something will prevent the climate from returning to the hot, humid state it was in the last time there was this much carbon in the cycle.
Item the second; "this feedback" has already "kicked in"; the eenergy received from the sun is only enough to support a blackbody temperature of approximately minus eighteen degrees C, in the absence of atmosphere. CO2 alone is only enough to raise the global average temperature to about ten below; other gases raise it another few degrees but the feedback effect of water vapor raises the average temperature to positive 14 degrees C. Your vision of clouds as the negative feedback which will kick in at some unspecified point in the future to limit temperature rise to some magic number that will be low enough to save us from trouble violates observed reality; both anecdotal, most people having noticed that a cloudy night retains warmth better than a clear one when heat is radiated into space, and precisely quantified studies:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/376
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19628865
Well perhaps you deniers should share your better understanding of what AGW predicts with, for instance, the IPCC; they think that
"a 'runaway greenhouse effect'â"analogous to Venus-appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities." - http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session31/inf3.pdf
Thank God you guys know better than the researchers, not only the science, but even what they are theorizing.
The third choice should be: it is both anthropogenic and natural causes which are completely unknown and yet follow the course of our CO2 generation in lockstep and yet the sum of both processes does not exceed what could be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 alone so it's futile to reduce our CO2 production because this other unknown process is so unknown that for all we know it might stop following our CO2 output if we reduce it and instead just keep going up because climate scientists don't know everything, do they.
Even if the leaders of the radical right were only pretending to Christianity to get obedient followers, more shame on the Christian followers for letting themselves be led. Hard to believe Christ's message was to follow anybody claiming to represent Him, particularly when the message is in opposition to everything Jesus preached; nationalism, materialism, xenophobia, preemptive violence, punishment of the poor, etc. These guys are always repeating how the Devil is a liar and seduces you with sweet talk and so on, and yet they fall for the first line of bull that matches what they wish Jesus' message would be.
We're perfectly happy with the risk of climate change (cue a dozen comments proving my point) but one opinion from the legal department that somebody who violates all the warnings and gets a nosebleed will have grounds to sue can keep a cure for cancer off the market.
See also "no vaccinations for my kids, I'm worried that they will catch autism"
Males.
We can't even make supersonic air travel profitable.
Any trend which is specifically dependent upon the choice of starting point is hardly reliable. You seem to be missing the point, deliberately or obtusely, despite it being repeated for your benefit, that "downward trends" indistinguishable from the current one you seem so impressed by, literally have occurred every few years during the almost linear increase of the past 40 years. Unless you have some reason why this time it's different you might as well be telling us that you're convinced that this time, the sun won't come up tomorrow.
Let's see; keeping us from getting cholera etc from our drinking water, putting out fires, insuring bank accounts, reducing workplace injuries, keeping various toxins and organisms out of the food supply, maintaining safe and effective pharmaceuticals, creating and maintaining the highway system, funding basic scientific research, maintaining fiduciary responsibility in financial institutions, keeping the general incidence of public violence down, eliminating the high incidence of poverty among the elderly, keeping air travel safe, eliminating starvation, eliminating smallpox, polio, measles, reducing consumer fraud, the GI Bill, public libraries, vehicle registration, building codes, licensing of professionals, I.e. doctors, dentists, engineers, etc, soil conservation, stabilizing the business cycle, children's welfare, I.e.school lunches, head start, SCHIP, emergency services, ...
Sure, none of these are done perfectly, but they're done adequately for the function of society; for contrast look at all the countries which don't bother with these functions. It's great to be a rich person in the developing world, but not so great if you have no guarantee that your savings account won't vanish, or that the president's cousin won't steal your startup if it gets profitable, or that the steel you buy is of correct tensile strength, or that your employees are educated and healthy.
These are tasks that private companies won't or can't take on for any amount, mostly due to the vast scales involved. The wonder is how well the government agencies do, with a hugely overworked and underpaid staff.
Of course, the previous administration's attempts to privatize the military ended the suggestions that private companies could do that particular function better.
I thought that was the entrance to the underground Nazi saucer base.
Wouldn't that be the Green Canyon?
And we had thriving human civilization then right?
Some space truck driver who ate at a questionable space diner found a sudden biological emergency and pulled over to land on primitive earth and take a dump. And that's how microorganisms originated on earth.
Whereas employees of private companies are all aces, right? Whether it's the guys who came up with New Coke or the guys who came up with Windows 8 or the guys whodo the offshore drilling for BP in the Gulf or the guys behind whatever is the latest leak of millions of people's private records or the salesperson at the cellphone store waiting his shot at the used car sales biz or the guys who run cruise ship lines or........
Seriously. If you want a shrink you have to pay a fortune. If you want to go to confession that's a whole big deal. If you want to just vent your friends and family get bored after a while. But here are these guys who call you up and won't hang up on you no matter how you blather on as long as you don't get abusive. Try it. The limit seems to be 45 minutes, then they say goodbye and hang up.
"How Human Psychology Holds Back Climate Change Action"?
Simple. There are like $5 trillion of fossil fuels still underground. And human psychology cannot let that $5 trillion stay underground.
I still don't understand where the passengers sat.
We don't understand why a sick bird of prey would be relocating to the US.
The deists of that time were probably analogous to the "I'm a spiritual person but I don't believe in any organized religion" folks of today.
"Dr. I feel that sometimed I am obsessive about precision to a pathological degree"
"How often do you feel that way? "
"0.0007 Hz"
"Times" does not equal RPM.
Consider for example:
"How many times did you boink your wife last night? Two? That's impossible!"
On the other hand the "more" in 500 times more is redundant and confusing.