For billions of years, the natural state of the atmosphere was much higher CO2 and warmer and wetter than any living species has seen. Carbon oxidizes exothermally, you see, and it doesn't "come out the atmosphere naturally" unless plants harness solar energy to reverse the reaction. And then the carbon returns to the atmosphere as the plants oxidize (decay or get eaten), unless they get buried underground where they can't oxidize, like they did in the Carboniferous Era. Until people dig up the coal and petroleum and return it to the atmosphere as CO2 again, in an effort to replicate conditions last seen when there were no land animals and only primitive land plants. How do you expect the carbon dioxide to "come out the atmosphere naturally" now? All those massive forests we have these days falling down and getting buried because there are no land creatures to feed on them? That happening in your neighborhood?
You do know that radiative filtering is a cumulative reduced efficiency calculation right? For each portion increase of CO2, each portion has less to filter or absorb..
Yes. You do know that every IPCC report points out that energy retention is a logarithmic function of CO2 content, right?
also... weeds seem to like CO2 more than crop plants. You do know there are two different photosynthetic pathways, right?
Since nobody has mentioned this, a big difference is that climate is much more interested in the basic deep causes of the surface phenomena we know as weather. Like the difference between microbial biochemistry and brewing.
So, if one side is saying "The science is settled!" and the other side is saying "We need more research before doing anything drastic!", it's the first group which is demanding more research?
3. Strengthening Connections or Adding Examples 1. When one unit of information expands or derives from another, consider putting a colon in between them. This makes the relation between the two units more obvious as it alerts the reader to regard the latter unit as significant to the former. This rather advanced use of the colon enables connecting two sentences together in an elegant and more concise manner, as it saves up on some wording. The new club president was elected by an extremely narrow margin. The count was 8,756 in favor and 8,250 against. [The reader has to put in some thinking in order to realize the purpose of the given figures as related to the election results] The new club president was elected by an extremely narrow margin : 8,756 in favor and 8,250 against. [The colon makes the connection between election results and figures clearer]
Unfortunately, it seems that formal logic is not your strong suit, or you would not use "It is thus equally obvious that if the Sun provides less warming, the temperature would drop, also regardless of any greenhouse effect. Similar if the Sun should provide more warming, temperature would go up." to prove that changes in temperature therefore must all be due to changes in the Sun or use "we have several periods of significant climate fluctuations in history and no known human or geological causes" to prove that "it is stupid to explain any variations seen today as caused by humans only." But never mind global warming, you had better get after that liar Smokey the Bear, with his "Only you can prevent forest fires." After all, we know there were forest fires before there were humans, so it's obvious that it is stupid to explain any forest fires seen today as caused by humans only.
Perhaps you might want to argue from a more physical basis, explaining just exactly how a change in the Sun can make the Earth warmer while keeping the Moon at the same temperature. It's not really clear from your post. I assume you've thought all this out, and aren't just wasting our time. Or perhaps you could explain how an increase in the Sun's output can heat up the lower layers of the atmosphere while cooling the outside layers of the atmosphere, which are more exposed to solar radiation. I've tried to mimic this effect using my toaster oven and various forms of insulation but it just won't work out for me. Something to do with the laws of thermodynamics, apparently. Or for that matter, how it is that an increase in the Sun's output has its greatest effect on the poles, which are least exposed to the Sun, and least effect on the tropics, which are more exposed to the Sun.
Also, you definitely need to explain to us why all those measurements of solar output we can do these days are just big fantasies.
never mind nuclear energy. the real point is that not even the US military can provide the unsustainable resource needs and lifestyle for everybody in the US. this is not news; trying to tell the US public this cost Jimmy Carter his job; the public liked that actor fellow who kept running the ads telling people they can have it all. they still do. apparently, we can't even provide basic medical care to everybody in the US and/or food and shelter to folks too old to find a job. still, who cares, as long as we are the best, eh?
when google torpedoed my account for no apparent reason, it was long enough ago that i only lost my google groups identity. very educational regarding the downside of keeping your data in the cloud.
This is a country where not just a sizable fraction of the population, but several highly regarded leaders of one of the two major political parties, was and probably still is convinced that Obama is some kind of socialist Muslim Kenya-born double agent and that the most important task facing the nation is to depose him. That sounds like a wide open market for antipsychotics to me.
Really? Every grant needs to say "DANGER DANGER this could kill us all if we don't study it!"? Boy, must have been a miracle that I got my grant for regulatory genetics of phosphate metabolism in E. coli then.
I am all ears for a theory that explains global warming better than the "it's the increase in GHGs released by burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of old-growth forests"
Why of course; as anyone can clearly see, it's not GHGs, it's the sun, it's cosmic rays, it's volcanoes, it's not really warming, it's warming on Mars too, it's the Milankovitch cycle, it's water vapor, it's the Urban Heat Island effect, it's a hoax, it's doctored data, it's a conspiracy by the powerful and wealthy climatology cartel, it's a plot to cripple the US economy, it's a plot to keep the third world in poverty, it's a plot to control our lives, it was warmer a zillion years ago, and most conclusively of all, Al Gore is fat. If that isn't more convincing that GHG theory, then I don't know what is.
So, in your world, there was no climate research before global warming was "invented" to make the money come in? And other sciences just weren't clever enough to invent a catastrophe to fund themselves? Same way medical scientists invented the concept of "smallpox" to get funding? Meanwhile, the same folks telling us that scientists are milking AGWphobia to get grant money are also the only people still saying we need more research on AGW, ironically enough.
But you have uncovered the conspiracy by the fertilizer manufacturers to convince farmers that the limiting factor in crop production is nitrogen fertilizer, when in fact all they need to do is blow CO2 at them.
You know, Al Gore was a zillionaire before AGW became popular; unlike Lindzen, Soon, Spencer, Baliunas, de Freitas, Michaels et al on the other hand have managed to ride the What Me Warming? wave to great success. I don't include Singer in that group, of course, since he had already found great success telling us that the science wasn't conclusive that smoking causes cancer, and that the voices of scientists who didn't oppose tobacco smoking were squelched, and that research that didn't prove smoking was bad would not be funded. Once you've got a successful talent, might as well make use of it everywhere.
"I like Bjorn Lomborg's approach which is to spend that money on clean water, medical care, and feeding the hungry instead. As well as simply moving people out of areas that might be impacted."
Oh, is that what we're spending out money on? Well certainly wouldn't want to cut into our vast expenditures in those directions.
if you believe in evolution, how could a climate different from the one every living land creature has evolved in be "optimal"?
and if you don't believe in evolution, are you suggesting God nearly got it right, we can just tweak it a smidgen?
to put it another way, what are the odds that the optimal climate will just happen to be a byproduct of oxidizing fossil fuel as fast as we can?
What's so silly about this is, if you have one milligram of some dangerous compound stuck in the back of a pocket or something, this will pick it up and you will be in for a hard time. But if you try to bring 2 liters of it on board in a water bottle and they catch it, they'll just toss it in with the rest of the confiscated liquids and let you try again next time.
i think he's trying to say that when a mechanical relay fails, it will be either open or closed, whereas with an electronic relay it might be neither or both. i'm still thinking about that.
it goes with today's territory. "research" consists of googling, "writing" consists of cutting and pasting, even when no actionable plagiarism is taking place.
Well, i've been asking about this for months and nobody has a good answer: my Place of Employment has 10K and 100K ethernet (in the old and new wings, respectively, obviously) and as I discovered upon getting a laptop which I take home with cable every day, the 10K PC to Box On The Wall cables are directional!
I.e., I had no problem before getting a laptop when the desktop PC just sat there wired up the way it was since the dawn of time, but after getting a laptop (when I plugged the network cable in randomly oriented each day) I had days when nothing would work and days when almost nothing would work and days when everything was OK. After a lot of calls to Tech Support, somebody finally asks if I've got the network cable plugged in in the right direction. ??? "Look at the little tape flag near the connector; one end says S for system, that goes to the PC, the other says H for Hub, that goes to the wall". They were there, but so small I didn't notice (not expecting such a thing). And sure enough, if I make sure to plug them in the right way every day, it's fine, if I plug them in in the wrong direction, little or no data transfer.
Unfortunately, the Tech Support guys have no clue what the difference is, and poking with an ohmeter doesn't show anything other than what i'd expect, each wire is connected at both ends, no continuity between any wire and any other, perfectly symmetrical. Pinout on each end is symmetrical. I've asked on some newsgroups and nobody had a clue.
And, the 100K cables are NOT directional.
Anybody got any idea WTF?
it's just another example of the vastly wealthy and powerful geosciences cartel which secretly rules the earth and controls our daily lives. if we knew that the earth was actually flat and that fossil fuels are a neverending source of cheap, safe, and clean energy, then everyone would burst the shackles which hold them in thrall to Al Gore.
Slashdot Mirror
For billions of years, the natural state of the atmosphere was much higher CO2 and warmer and wetter than any living species has seen. Carbon oxidizes exothermally, you see, and it doesn't "come out the atmosphere naturally" unless plants harness solar energy to reverse the reaction. And then the carbon returns to the atmosphere as the plants oxidize (decay or get eaten), unless they get buried underground where they can't oxidize, like they did in the Carboniferous Era. Until people dig up the coal and petroleum and return it to the atmosphere as CO2 again, in an effort to replicate conditions last seen when there were no land animals and only primitive land plants. How do you expect the carbon dioxide to "come out the atmosphere naturally" now? All those massive forests we have these days falling down and getting buried because there are no land creatures to feed on them? That happening in your neighborhood?
You do know that radiative filtering is a cumulative reduced efficiency calculation right? .
For each portion increase of CO2, each portion has less to filter or absorb.
Yes. You do know that every IPCC report points out that energy retention is a logarithmic function of CO2 content, right?
also... weeds seem to like CO2 more than crop plants. You do know there are two different photosynthetic pathways, right?
Since nobody has mentioned this, a big difference is that climate is much more interested in the basic deep causes of the surface phenomena we know as weather. Like the difference between microbial biochemistry and brewing.
If a lion is chasing me and I see a tree, it makes a difference weather I can climate.
So, if one side is saying "The science is settled!" and the other side is saying "We need more research before doing anything drastic!", it's the first group which is demanding more research?
3. Strengthening Connections or Adding Examples
1. When one unit of information expands or derives from another, consider putting a colon in between them. This makes the relation between the two units more obvious as it alerts the reader to regard the latter unit as significant to the former. This rather advanced use of the colon enables connecting two sentences together in an elegant and more concise manner, as it saves up on some wording.
The new club president was elected by an extremely narrow margin. The count was 8,756 in favor and 8,250 against.
[The reader has to put in some thinking in order to realize the purpose of the given figures as related to the election results]
The new club president was elected by an extremely narrow margin : 8,756 in favor and 8,250 against.
[The colon makes the connection between election results and figures clearer]
http://www.whitesmoke.com/punctuation-colon.html
Unfortunately, it seems that formal logic is not your strong suit, or you would not use
"It is thus equally obvious that if the Sun provides less warming, the temperature would drop, also regardless of any greenhouse effect. Similar if the Sun should provide more warming, temperature would go up."
to prove that changes in temperature therefore must all be due to changes in the Sun
or use
"we have several periods of significant climate fluctuations in history and no known human or geological causes"
to prove that
"it is stupid to explain any variations seen today as caused by humans only."
But never mind global warming, you had better get after that liar Smokey the Bear, with his "Only you can prevent forest fires." After all, we know there were forest fires before there were humans, so it's obvious that it is stupid to explain any forest fires seen today as caused by humans only.
Perhaps you might want to argue from a more physical basis, explaining just exactly how a change in the Sun can make the Earth warmer while keeping the Moon at the same temperature. It's not really clear from your post. I assume you've thought all this out, and aren't just wasting our time. Or perhaps you could explain how an increase in the Sun's output can heat up the lower layers of the atmosphere while cooling the outside layers of the atmosphere, which are more exposed to solar radiation. I've tried to mimic this effect using my toaster oven and various forms of insulation but it just won't work out for me. Something to do with the laws of thermodynamics, apparently. Or for that matter, how it is that an increase in the Sun's output has its greatest effect on the poles, which are least exposed to the Sun, and least effect on the tropics, which are more exposed to the Sun.
Also, you definitely need to explain to us why all those measurements of solar output we can do these days are just big fantasies.
never mind nuclear energy. the real point is that not even the US military can provide the unsustainable resource needs and lifestyle for everybody in the US. this is not news; trying to tell the US public this cost Jimmy Carter his job; the public liked that actor fellow who kept running the ads telling people they can have it all. they still do. apparently, we can't even provide basic medical care to everybody in the US and/or food and shelter to folks too old to find a job. still, who cares, as long as we are the best, eh?
yeah, just like when your house is on fire and the firemen don't know how long before it collapses, that means it's probably pretty safe.
when google torpedoed my account for no apparent reason, it was long enough ago that i only lost my google groups identity. very educational regarding the downside of keeping your data in the cloud.
This is a country where not just a sizable fraction of the population, but several highly regarded leaders of one of the two major political parties, was and probably still is convinced that Obama is some kind of socialist Muslim Kenya-born double agent and that the most important task facing the nation is to depose him. That sounds like a wide open market for antipsychotics to me.
Really? Every grant needs to say "DANGER DANGER this could kill us all if we don't study it!"? Boy, must have been a miracle that I got my grant for regulatory genetics of phosphate metabolism in E. coli then.
I am all ears for a theory that explains global warming better than the "it's the increase in GHGs released by burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of old-growth forests"
Why of course; as anyone can clearly see, it's not GHGs, it's the sun, it's cosmic rays, it's volcanoes, it's not really warming, it's warming on Mars too, it's the Milankovitch cycle, it's water vapor, it's the Urban Heat Island effect, it's a hoax, it's doctored data, it's a conspiracy by the powerful and wealthy climatology cartel, it's a plot to cripple the US economy, it's a plot to keep the third world in poverty, it's a plot to control our lives, it was warmer a zillion years ago, and most conclusively of all, Al Gore is fat. If that isn't more convincing that GHG theory, then I don't know what is.
So, in your world, there was no climate research before global warming was "invented" to make the money come in? And other sciences just weren't clever enough to invent a catastrophe to fund themselves? Same way medical scientists invented the concept of "smallpox" to get funding? Meanwhile, the same folks telling us that scientists are milking AGWphobia to get grant money are also the only people still saying we need more research on AGW, ironically enough. But you have uncovered the conspiracy by the fertilizer manufacturers to convince farmers that the limiting factor in crop production is nitrogen fertilizer, when in fact all they need to do is blow CO2 at them. You know, Al Gore was a zillionaire before AGW became popular; unlike Lindzen, Soon, Spencer, Baliunas, de Freitas, Michaels et al on the other hand have managed to ride the What Me Warming? wave to great success. I don't include Singer in that group, of course, since he had already found great success telling us that the science wasn't conclusive that smoking causes cancer, and that the voices of scientists who didn't oppose tobacco smoking were squelched, and that research that didn't prove smoking was bad would not be funded. Once you've got a successful talent, might as well make use of it everywhere.
I figure he's up there right now, having a serious talk with God about some of His design flaws.
"I like Bjorn Lomborg's approach which is to spend that money on clean water, medical care, and feeding the hungry instead. As well as simply moving people out of areas that might be impacted." Oh, is that what we're spending out money on? Well certainly wouldn't want to cut into our vast expenditures in those directions.
if you believe in evolution, how could a climate different from the one every living land creature has evolved in be "optimal"? and if you don't believe in evolution, are you suggesting God nearly got it right, we can just tweak it a smidgen? to put it another way, what are the odds that the optimal climate will just happen to be a byproduct of oxidizing fossil fuel as fast as we can?
like in the middle of the ocean, next to those air conditioner outlets from atlantis
Yeah, I see something like that on the intro to the Simpsons every week.
What's so silly about this is, if you have one milligram of some dangerous compound stuck in the back of a pocket or something, this will pick it up and you will be in for a hard time. But if you try to bring 2 liters of it on board in a water bottle and they catch it, they'll just toss it in with the rest of the confiscated liquids and let you try again next time.
i think he's trying to say that when a mechanical relay fails, it will be either open or closed, whereas with an electronic relay it might be neither or both. i'm still thinking about that.
it goes with today's territory. "research" consists of googling, "writing" consists of cutting and pasting, even when no actionable plagiarism is taking place.
Well, i've been asking about this for months and nobody has a good answer: my Place of Employment has 10K and 100K ethernet (in the old and new wings, respectively, obviously) and as I discovered upon getting a laptop which I take home with cable every day, the 10K PC to Box On The Wall cables are directional! I.e., I had no problem before getting a laptop when the desktop PC just sat there wired up the way it was since the dawn of time, but after getting a laptop (when I plugged the network cable in randomly oriented each day) I had days when nothing would work and days when almost nothing would work and days when everything was OK. After a lot of calls to Tech Support, somebody finally asks if I've got the network cable plugged in in the right direction. ??? "Look at the little tape flag near the connector; one end says S for system, that goes to the PC, the other says H for Hub, that goes to the wall". They were there, but so small I didn't notice (not expecting such a thing). And sure enough, if I make sure to plug them in the right way every day, it's fine, if I plug them in in the wrong direction, little or no data transfer. Unfortunately, the Tech Support guys have no clue what the difference is, and poking with an ohmeter doesn't show anything other than what i'd expect, each wire is connected at both ends, no continuity between any wire and any other, perfectly symmetrical. Pinout on each end is symmetrical. I've asked on some newsgroups and nobody had a clue. And, the 100K cables are NOT directional. Anybody got any idea WTF?
most people seem to have noticed that they and others end up getting more injuries while "warming up" than they do in the athletic feat itself.
it's just another example of the vastly wealthy and powerful geosciences cartel which secretly rules the earth and controls our daily lives. if we knew that the earth was actually flat and that fossil fuels are a neverending source of cheap, safe, and clean energy, then everyone would burst the shackles which hold them in thrall to Al Gore.