Um, that's something that's *always* addressed with electric cars. It comes up in every freaking conversation. Please stop acting like you just thought of something nobody else did.
The EV1's climate control had three settings -- low, medium, and high. Low took ~400W, medium ~1200, and high ~2000. Medium and high were mainly just for cooling the car down when it's been sitting out in the sun; low alone was sufficient for most circumstances. And you could schedule the AC to come on with a timer while you're plugged in (newer EVs are looking at web apps so you can start your car's AC with a smart phone from anywhere you have service, as well as all sorts of other nifty things).
The Gen 2 EV1's combined cycle range over its battery pack size works out to something like 180-190Wh/mi. Multiplying by an average speed of say 50mph, you get an average power draw of 9kW.
So, let's compare: 400 watts. 9 kilowatts. One of these numbers is way bigger than the other. Hint: it's not the AC.
Heating works just the same way -- you just run the heat pump in reverse, with the advantage that if your system is set up to do so, you can make use of waste motor/inverter heat. There's not as much waste heat in an EV as in an ICE, but even if only 12% of that 9kW is recoverable, that's over 1kW heat -- the output of a small space heater.
No. As opposed to a (non-average) hetero teenage male gamer, who runs around saying "I LOVE PUSSY!", or "I'm God's gift to women. Behold my cock!"
That'd be relevant if that's what we were talking about here. It's not. The policy is to ban people *simply for stating that they're gay*. Which is the equivalent of someone saying "(blank) is hot" or "my girlfriend called".
Just as another example of Iranian research: ridiculously strong concrete. High strength concrete generally has a compressive strength of 3,000 PSI or so. The person who wrote in about the situation had created concrete for the competition that was 16,000 PSI. 10,000 PSI is considered hard rock, and granite is 30,000 PSI. The Iranian concrete was *50,000-60,000* PSI. When it shattered, it damaged the testing equipment. They pulled it off using what appeared to be a quartz aggregate (160,000 PSI) and steel fibers. And this was at 28 days; concrete gets stronger over time.
Naturally, Wired spins it into the context of bunkers and nuclear weapons, like we do with everything that comes out of Iran. How long until this thin-film motor gets portrayed as something nefarious?
"Next on Fox: An Iranian art student paints a prize-winning portrait of a sunflower. Is it really a secret code for transferring nuclear secrets? Find out after the break."
Iran is trying their damndest not to be seen as an intellectual backwater. And while they're not up to western standards, nor are western stereotypes of Iranian academic achievement generally justified. There are now six times as many university students in Iran today as there were in 1979 when the Shah was overthrown -- largely because tuition, room, and board are paid for by the government, which is trying to improve their education standards. Here's a fair summary of the situation today. They're no shining star when it comes to education, but they're not backwoods yokels either.
Another way to put it: Iran has two of the top 500 universities in the world, as ranked by QS. That puts them tied for 42nd in terms of top-500 universities, with . 140 countries don't have any top-ranking universities at all. There's not a single country in the Carribean with a top-500 university, only two countries in all of Africa (Egypt=1, South Africa=4), and so on. The lion's share are in the US -- 123, followed by the UK (50), Germany (42), France (38), and Japan (36). Iran ranks better than Lithuania, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Egypt, Slovenia, Colombia, Peru, UAE, Romania, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh (1 each), but below Mexico (3) and Poland, Portugal, Pakistan, Denmark, Israel, Norway, South Africa, Chile, Phillipines, Czech Republic, and Argentina (4 each).
I think you've missed the GP's point. I've met a number of (admittedly teenage) lesbians (and a couple of gay men) who seem to treat their sexual orientation as their primary defining personality feature
As opposed to your average hetero teenage male gamer who's as prudish as a Victorian nun?
Anyone else find it amusing that they are so concerned about being offensive to gays, but where is the consideration about being offensive to everyone else?
Anyone find it amusing that Kral presented the situation as precisely exactly the opposite of what happened, without intending to be ironic?
Note: I'm not implying that this was specifically the same elrous0 as you, or anything of that nature. Just an odd coincidence, I'm sure, that happens to be relevant to the conversation. I just find it odd how you find it perfectly acceptable to ban one group from mentioning anything relevant to a *huge chunk of their life* under the argument that "gamers don't usually mention that they're married" (or dating, or make offhand comments about their SOs, or mention that they find someone attractive, or on and on down the line).
Huh, so gamers don't mention their family? Funny, because when I googled Elrous0, one of the first pages I found was this... and hey, looky what's in the "Relevant Pages" section at the bottom:
"I am the only one to use the PS3 in this household... I very much doubt my wife would want to play Warhawk"
And *even still*, it'd still be hypocritical to have a policy *ban* one group from doing so and not another.
When Microsoft bans, say, people from writing "I am black" in their profile because it might start a fight with skinheads or "I am an evolutionary biologist" because it might start a fight with creationists is the day I'll consider this position toward gays and lesbians even remotely fair.
So, if she were to write in her profile that she had a husband, that'd be okay? And if she were to write in her profile that she had a wife, that'd not be okay?
This is what's so wrong with people just saying "shut up about your sexual orientation". That's basically saying "Unlike everyone around you, you need to hide pretty much your entire life from everyone else." The fact that you see "I am gay" as equivalent to writing "Christians and Jews are the devil!" is incredibly offensive on so many levels.
Ah, philosophy; always great material for discussions:)
The answer to what you're looking for is "existentialism." Indeed, in a universe without inherent meaning, there is no meaning behind any action. Or any emotion, or anything. If it were to make me "happy" to take care of a child, to what meaning would even that happiness have? None.
But at the same time, if you live in a universe without meaning, what is the meaning of even going on living? None. Of course, there's no meaning to dying, either. There's no purpose to doing anything. Why do anything at all then? Or not do anything? It's a quandary, no?
From this, existentialism arises (also nihilism, although most people don't choose it). Basically, an existentialist acknowledges and accepts that nothing that they do will have meaning. However, they choose to designate certain things in the universe as having meaning. An order for everything else naturally falls into place behind it. You know that it's a house of cards, all relying on a fundamentally meaningless premise that you created from whole cloth; that's the *point* of it. But it allows you to create an order around which your life can be lived, eliminating the quandary from the picture. Once defined, you never have to deal with issues of meaning again unless you choose to. Which is always your prerogative, of course.
One particular branch of existentialism is humanism. A humanist is an existentialist whose definition of meaning in the universe is the betterment of humanity (and often all living things). This is a fairly common route.
Atmospheric mixing is not instant. You may have noticed that our atmosphere is not a uniform temperature. Both convection and radiation play important roles in atmospheric heat transfer.
The re-radiated infra-red radiation would mostly be outside of those spectra
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The frequencies which energy gets radiated is largely due to its temperature. Now, it will be concentrated within the spectral lines of a given material, but the general distribution still roughly follows the blackbody curve for that temperature. You don't have -20 degree gasses radiating visible or near-IR light (the main relevant transparent bands in the atmosphere) in any relevant quantities.
Pointing to temperature change as evidence of a CO2 effect is circular reasoning.
No, it's a direct counter to your claims of there not being any effect.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and a much stronger one than CO2
Did you even read my post? Water vapor has such a short atmospheric residency that it can only act as feedback, not forcing. And water vapor's net results are actually mixed, depending on where it is in the atmosphere, as clouds reflect sunlight.
A '10-meter' column of atmosphere is an insignificant height.
Apparently you're 15 meters tall. The rest of us here live near the surface, and it's the surface temperature that matters to us. The atmosphere's ability to absorb far-IR on the scale of the very bottom of the troposphere is tiny. And that's what matters when it comes to surface temperature.
Water is ALWAYS present in the atmosphere.
Any more non-sequiteurs you'd like to mention? I point out that water vapor has a tiny residency, on the matter of days, and you point out that it's always there? Duh! And a given molecule of water vapor still only remains in the atmosphere for a matter of days on average. Water is constantly cycling in and out. You could take every last molecule of moisture out of our atmosphere and (neglecting that the plants would die), things would be back to normal in a matter of months. Water vapor cannot force climate change for this reason. It can only react to other types of forcing (say, more water vapor because of hotter seas, or less because of more aerosols increasing cloud formation) because it lasts for such a short period. Hence, it can *amplify or suppress* other types of forcing, but it cannot *be* forcing on its own.
The upper layers are colder than the upper layers.
Erm, colder than the *lower* layers.
the lower the absorption of near-IR and visible, the faster energy can transfer from the upper layers to the surface or even straight to the surface
Poorly phrased; most visible and IR energy makes it direct to the surface (~1400W/m^2 arrives, ~1000W/m^2 hits a perpendicular plane on the surface on a clear day). And it's not such a simple correlation of altitude and temperature as I presented it for simplicity. That relationship holds in the troposphere, reverses in the stratosphere, reverses again in the mesosphere, then rises very high in the thermosphere. But that's all beside the point; the fact is that for energy to escape from Earth's surface, it has to be absorbed and reradiated many times. Increasing the CO2 concentration significantly increases the expected number of times to be re-radiated.
It seems impossible to have any reasoned discussion about carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased from 290 ppm in pre-industrial times to 365 ppm today and that increase is NOT having a significant effect on climate.
In the 'global warming' scenario, short wavelength radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere and warms the earth. The warmed earth then re-radiates long-wavelength infra-red radiation back into space, or at least tries to but is allegedly stopped by carbon dioxide. So...what's wrong with this? CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation in only a narrow wavelength band and it will not absorb any infra-red radiation with a wavelength outside of its absorption band. There is already far more CO2 in the atmosphere than is needed to effectively absorb ALL infra-red radiation in the CO2 absorption band. (A much bigger absorber of infra-red radiation in the atmosphere is...water vapor...but that's another movie.)
Sorry, but you should really start reading peer-reviewed research and stop listening to viscounts. First off, for something to be a greenhouse gas, it *needs* to be selective on what it blocks. An optimal greenhouse gas is *transparent* to light in the visible and near-IR spectrum, and *opaque* to far-IR. You need to let the sun's energy in (mostly visible and near-IR) while making it harder for what the Earth radiates (mostly far-IR) out. A gas that blocks everything evenly is not a greenhouse gas.
Secondly, your argument is akin to saying that if a reflective blanket keeps 95% of your heat in, putting another reflective blanket around you won't help much. Earth is not a simple physics problem with a surface, a single one-pass medium, and an energy input. Light is constantly absorbed and re-radiated all throughout the atmosphere. The upper layers are colder than the upper layers. The higher the absorption of far-IR, the slower energy can transfer from the lower layers to the upper layers; the lower the absorption of near-IR and visible, the faster energy can transfer from the upper layers to the surface (or even straight to the surface). In short, until a 10-meter or so column of atmosphere can absorb 95%, increasing CO2 levels is a *major* impactor on surface temperature.
Lastly, water vapor is 100% feedback, not forcing. Water vapor has a tiny residency in the atmosphere (days), while CO2 has a long residency (hundreds of years). Any disequilibrium in water vapor is rapidly remedied. Now, on *geological time scales*, CO2 is feedback, mostly to Milankovitch cycles. But that's on the scale of tens of thousands of years.
The effect of increasing CO2 concentration is therefore only to cause absorption to occur at a slightly lower altitude in the atmosphere and after carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation, it quickly collides with nearby, and far more abundant, oxygen and nitrogen molecules, transferring heat to them. These then re-radiate heat out into space.
Wow, was the person you read that from a comedian or just an idiot? CO2 is perfectly capable of radiating IR. *All* objects in the universe are. It doesn't matter whether it's CO2, O2, N2, or what. There are different spectral lines (rather than a perfect blackbody), but it's not a practical distinction. The energy can be radiated in any direction -- up or down. It's almost invariably reabsorbed unless it's in the outermost fringes of the atmosphere. As mentioned before, the more transparent the atmosphere is to "incoming" radiation types, the faster solar energy can migrate to the surface. The less transparent it is to "outgoing" types, the slower far-IR energy can migrate away from the surface. I can make you a drawing or a rudimentary python script to illustrate this concept if you're still having trouble with it.
So...if carbon dioxide is not changing our climate, what is? Look to the Sun
I know where it went; it is called the carbon cycle. All that CO2 is either in the oceans, in plants/animals and in the air as CO2. I just saved you $273 million dollars, and I take a 10% cut. Check please.
The point is to know precisely where it's going, to know how much its future capacity to soak carbon will be. For example, here's a known case: the oceans. Since we know that a lot of it is going to the oceans, and how much, we can determine what it's carbon soaking capacity will be in the future as it gets more and more saturated. But, to pick some random possibility... carbonates formed from exposed surface rock. If we don't how much CO2 is going into forming additional carbonates naturally, we have no ability to model how much that ability will fade off in the future.
The current models, which generally assume that unknown carbon sinks will remain equally able to keep sinking an unlimited amount of carbon into the future, are likely very overly optimistic on this front on this front.
We've probably made the world a better place for our friends who breathe the stuff.
Most of the world's oceans (2/3rds of the world's available area for photosynthesis) are not CO2-limited, but nutrient-limited. In particular, iron.
Can someone please answer this: If we are burning fossil fuels; presumably all this carbon we are burning was part of the carbon cycle 100s of millions of years ago.
Not necessarily. Oil, and even natural gas and coal deposits are just a fraction of all entombed carbon. There's also shales and all sorts of carbonate minerals. Carbon levels are constantly in flux. Back during the Cambrian, they hit as high as 7,000 ppm. By the mid-Carboniferous, they were down to around 350 ppm. But that took place over the course of 250 million years, an average change of 1ppm every 40,000 years. Some periods were steeper than others, of course; the mid Devonian dropped a ppm every few thousand years, and there are probably more dramatic spikes that we just don't have the resolution to see (more like what we see in the Holocene record). But nothing in the historical record even approaches a relentless 1 1/2 ppm/year.
It's not *that* the Earth is changing. The Earth always changes. The problem is how fast it's changing. I don't know about yours, but my species certainly can't rapidly evolve over the course of a few dozen generations. And much of our infrastructure is fixed in place, unable to adapt at all; you can't just pack people up from areas that are drying out and move them to new Canadian/Siberian farmland without huge expense and hardship.
Very classy there. Oh, sure, go ahead -- lump us in with those two groups of anti-scientific, peer-reviewed-research-denying kooks. But I can assure you, we'll be getting the last laugh when you sail off the edge of the Earth.
The part of a mailto URI that's equivalent to the DNS is the email adddress, and yes, it is no more than 255 characters. Your link doesn't state that *entire URIs* should be no more than 255 characters.
This isn't a feedback form. It's a series of complex configuration details that you're not just going to write on a whim (if it was written on a whim, I wouldn't accept it as a preset). The various drivetrain stats may have several hundred entries each. You're not going to do this in a net cafe. And if you use only webmail, you can just copy it. It's not worth coding what basically amounts to an indirect email form which not only takes more work, but provides another thing that could break, raises issues of popup blockers, and so on. It's something that is going to be used only rarely, but when it is used, the person using it is going to have the motive to make sure it works. If it does prove to be a problem, I'll switch to a serverside form, but at this point, that doesn't pass scrutiny on a cost-benefit analysis.
I just had to fix two IE-specific bugs. One, IE doesn't play nicely with Google Maps. It pretends like your internet connection is down and asks you to diagnose it (rather than report a page error) if you don't defer all loading of anything related to Google Maps until the DOM is fully loaded. That was a PITA to figure out the proper incandation to convince it to work right, especially since it faked having no net connection rather than report a site error, and refused to uncache its copies unless I deleted browser history. The other was related to it insisting on making me manually reset an IFRAME that was returned by some CGI; sometimes, when the page finished loading, IE would inexplicably wipe out the IFRAME's contents, including a DIV I needed to use. But not immediately. Also a pain, and also, naturally, IE was the only browser that had this behavior.
GET is a type of HTTP request. Mailto isn't HTTP. Why isn't this the beginning and end of this conversation right there?
Show me one proxy server in use today that limits GETs more than IE. As though that's a valid justification -- limiting, what, 85% of the computers on the net because some proxy might possibly do it for them?
As stated, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for a long GET URL -- Google Maps being a good example (they have to limit it to be compatible with IE). But that's not even applicable, because mailto is not a GET request in the first place. What exactly is setting method to POST even supposed to do? POST to your email client instead of GET? How do you start up a program with POST rather than GET? Get and POST are HTTP requests, and mailto is not HTTP. Doing a mailto in an HREF is the standard way to do it.
I can't believe we're even having to have this debate. IE is imposing a non-spec limit on the wrong type of URI in a way that breaks the standard way of doing a common function. That's a bug.
Mailto isn't GET. It's not even HTTP. It's just a URI shortcut for "open an email client". Mailto in an HREF is the *standard* way of spawning an email client. And IE's 2083 character limit is something that they made up that is not called for by spec anyway, and it interferes with perfectly legitimate uses.
1) There is no spec limit for GET lengths. Microsoft decided to make one up. And they made it tiny. 2) mailto is not a GET request. According to the spec, "No additional information other than an Internet mailing address is present or implied." Microsoft decided to interpret it as a GET request, probably due to lazy coding. 3) HTTP/1.1 RFC applies to *http*. Mailto is not http.
Their choice of behavior is both in violation of specs *and* a big annoyance. And it's just one random example out of hundreds that I've encountered. 9 times out of ten, if one browser isn't working and every other one is, that one is IE.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, that's something that's *always* addressed with electric cars. It comes up in every freaking conversation. Please stop acting like you just thought of something nobody else did.
The EV1's climate control had three settings -- low, medium, and high. Low took ~400W, medium ~1200, and high ~2000. Medium and high were mainly just for cooling the car down when it's been sitting out in the sun; low alone was sufficient for most circumstances. And you could schedule the AC to come on with a timer while you're plugged in (newer EVs are looking at web apps so you can start your car's AC with a smart phone from anywhere you have service, as well as all sorts of other nifty things).
The Gen 2 EV1's combined cycle range over its battery pack size works out to something like 180-190Wh/mi. Multiplying by an average speed of say 50mph, you get an average power draw of 9kW.
So, let's compare: 400 watts. 9 kilowatts. One of these numbers is way bigger than the other. Hint: it's not the AC.
Heating works just the same way -- you just run the heat pump in reverse, with the advantage that if your system is set up to do so, you can make use of waste motor/inverter heat. There's not as much waste heat in an EV as in an ICE, but even if only 12% of that 9kW is recoverable, that's over 1kW heat -- the output of a small space heater.
No. As opposed to a (non-average) hetero teenage male gamer, who runs around saying "I LOVE PUSSY!", or "I'm God's gift to women. Behold my cock!"
That'd be relevant if that's what we were talking about here. It's not. The policy is to ban people *simply for stating that they're gay*. Which is the equivalent of someone saying "(blank) is hot" or "my girlfriend called".
Just as another example of Iranian research: ridiculously strong concrete. High strength concrete generally has a compressive strength of 3,000 PSI or so. The person who wrote in about the situation had created concrete for the competition that was 16,000 PSI. 10,000 PSI is considered hard rock, and granite is 30,000 PSI. The Iranian concrete was *50,000-60,000* PSI. When it shattered, it damaged the testing equipment. They pulled it off using what appeared to be a quartz aggregate (160,000 PSI) and steel fibers. And this was at 28 days; concrete gets stronger over time.
Naturally, Wired spins it into the context of bunkers and nuclear weapons, like we do with everything that comes out of Iran. How long until this thin-film motor gets portrayed as something nefarious?
"Next on Fox: An Iranian art student paints a prize-winning portrait of a sunflower. Is it really a secret code for transferring nuclear secrets? Find out after the break."
Iran is trying their damndest not to be seen as an intellectual backwater. And while they're not up to western standards, nor are western stereotypes of Iranian academic achievement generally justified. There are now six times as many university students in Iran today as there were in 1979 when the Shah was overthrown -- largely because tuition, room, and board are paid for by the government, which is trying to improve their education standards. Here's a fair summary of the situation today. They're no shining star when it comes to education, but they're not backwoods yokels either.
Another way to put it: Iran has two of the top 500 universities in the world, as ranked by QS. That puts them tied for 42nd in terms of top-500 universities, with . 140 countries don't have any top-ranking universities at all. There's not a single country in the Carribean with a top-500 university, only two countries in all of Africa (Egypt=1, South Africa=4), and so on. The lion's share are in the US -- 123, followed by the UK (50), Germany (42), France (38), and Japan (36). Iran ranks better than Lithuania, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Egypt, Slovenia, Colombia, Peru, UAE, Romania, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh (1 each), but below Mexico (3) and Poland, Portugal, Pakistan, Denmark, Israel, Norway, South Africa, Chile, Phillipines, Czech Republic, and Argentina (4 each).
I think you've missed the GP's point. I've met a number of (admittedly teenage) lesbians (and a couple of gay men) who seem to treat their sexual orientation as their primary defining personality feature
As opposed to your average hetero teenage male gamer who's as prudish as a Victorian nun?
Anyone else find it amusing that they are so concerned about being offensive to gays, but where is the consideration about being offensive to everyone else?
Anyone find it amusing that Kral presented the situation as precisely exactly the opposite of what happened, without intending to be ironic?
Note: I'm not implying that this was specifically the same elrous0 as you, or anything of that nature. Just an odd coincidence, I'm sure, that happens to be relevant to the conversation. I just find it odd how you find it perfectly acceptable to ban one group from mentioning anything relevant to a *huge chunk of their life* under the argument that "gamers don't usually mention that they're married" (or dating, or make offhand comments about their SOs, or mention that they find someone attractive, or on and on down the line).
Huh, so gamers don't mention their family? Funny, because when I googled Elrous0, one of the first pages I found was this... and hey, looky what's in the "Relevant Pages" section at the bottom:
"I am the only one to use the PS3 in this household ... I very much doubt my wife would want to play Warhawk"
And *even still*, it'd still be hypocritical to have a policy *ban* one group from doing so and not another.
When's the last time you recall anything good coming out of hollywood?
Two years ago, although sadly they put it out before it reached the rest of LA.
(j/k; I like SoCal... even LA ;) )
When Microsoft bans, say, people from writing "I am black" in their profile because it might start a fight with skinheads or "I am an evolutionary biologist" because it might start a fight with creationists is the day I'll consider this position toward gays and lesbians even remotely fair.
So, if she were to write in her profile that she had a husband, that'd be okay?
And if she were to write in her profile that she had a wife, that'd not be okay?
This is what's so wrong with people just saying "shut up about your sexual orientation". That's basically saying "Unlike everyone around you, you need to hide pretty much your entire life from everyone else." The fact that you see "I am gay" as equivalent to writing "Christians and Jews are the devil!" is incredibly offensive on so many levels.
Ah, philosophy; always great material for discussions :)
The answer to what you're looking for is "existentialism." Indeed, in a universe without inherent meaning, there is no meaning behind any action. Or any emotion, or anything. If it were to make me "happy" to take care of a child, to what meaning would even that happiness have? None.
But at the same time, if you live in a universe without meaning, what is the meaning of even going on living? None. Of course, there's no meaning to dying, either. There's no purpose to doing anything. Why do anything at all then? Or not do anything? It's a quandary, no?
From this, existentialism arises (also nihilism, although most people don't choose it). Basically, an existentialist acknowledges and accepts that nothing that they do will have meaning. However, they choose to designate certain things in the universe as having meaning. An order for everything else naturally falls into place behind it. You know that it's a house of cards, all relying on a fundamentally meaningless premise that you created from whole cloth; that's the *point* of it. But it allows you to create an order around which your life can be lived, eliminating the quandary from the picture. Once defined, you never have to deal with issues of meaning again unless you choose to. Which is always your prerogative, of course.
One particular branch of existentialism is humanism. A humanist is an existentialist whose definition of meaning in the universe is the betterment of humanity (and often all living things). This is a fairly common route.
Atmospheric mixing is not instant. You may have noticed that our atmosphere is not a uniform temperature. Both convection and radiation play important roles in atmospheric heat transfer.
The re-radiated infra-red radiation would mostly be outside of those spectra
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The frequencies which energy gets radiated is largely due to its temperature. Now, it will be concentrated within the spectral lines of a given material, but the general distribution still roughly follows the blackbody curve for that temperature. You don't have -20 degree gasses radiating visible or near-IR light (the main relevant transparent bands in the atmosphere) in any relevant quantities.
Learn.
The sun is a strong source of near-IR. It's not a very good source of far-IR. Image.
Pointing to temperature change as evidence of a CO2 effect is circular reasoning.
No, it's a direct counter to your claims of there not being any effect.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and a much stronger one than CO2
Did you even read my post? Water vapor has such a short atmospheric residency that it can only act as feedback, not forcing. And water vapor's net results are actually mixed, depending on where it is in the atmosphere, as clouds reflect sunlight.
A '10-meter' column of atmosphere is an insignificant height.
Apparently you're 15 meters tall. The rest of us here live near the surface, and it's the surface temperature that matters to us. The atmosphere's ability to absorb far-IR on the scale of the very bottom of the troposphere is tiny. And that's what matters when it comes to surface temperature.
Water is ALWAYS present in the atmosphere.
Any more non-sequiteurs you'd like to mention? I point out that water vapor has a tiny residency, on the matter of days, and you point out that it's always there? Duh! And a given molecule of water vapor still only remains in the atmosphere for a matter of days on average. Water is constantly cycling in and out. You could take every last molecule of moisture out of our atmosphere and (neglecting that the plants would die), things would be back to normal in a matter of months. Water vapor cannot force climate change for this reason. It can only react to other types of forcing (say, more water vapor because of hotter seas, or less because of more aerosols increasing cloud formation) because it lasts for such a short period. Hence, it can *amplify or suppress* other types of forcing, but it cannot *be* forcing on its own.
The upper layers are colder than the upper layers.
Erm, colder than the *lower* layers.
the lower the absorption of near-IR and visible, the faster energy can transfer from the upper layers to the surface or even straight to the surface
Poorly phrased; most visible and IR energy makes it direct to the surface (~1400W/m^2 arrives, ~1000W/m^2 hits a perpendicular plane on the surface on a clear day). And it's not such a simple correlation of altitude and temperature as I presented it for simplicity. That relationship holds in the troposphere, reverses in the stratosphere, reverses again in the mesosphere, then rises very high in the thermosphere. But that's all beside the point; the fact is that for energy to escape from Earth's surface, it has to be absorbed and reradiated many times. Increasing the CO2 concentration significantly increases the expected number of times to be re-radiated.
It seems impossible to have any reasoned discussion about carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased from 290 ppm in pre-industrial times to 365 ppm today and that increase is NOT having a significant effect on climate.
Oh really?
In the 'global warming' scenario, short wavelength radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere and warms the earth. The warmed earth then re-radiates long-wavelength infra-red radiation back into space, or at least tries to but is allegedly stopped by carbon dioxide. So...what's wrong with this? CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation in only a narrow wavelength band and it will not absorb any infra-red radiation with a wavelength outside of its absorption band. There is already far more CO2 in the atmosphere than is needed to effectively absorb ALL infra-red radiation in the CO2 absorption band. (A much bigger absorber of infra-red radiation in the atmosphere is...water vapor...but that's another movie.)
Sorry, but you should really start reading peer-reviewed research and stop listening to viscounts. First off, for something to be a greenhouse gas, it *needs* to be selective on what it blocks. An optimal greenhouse gas is *transparent* to light in the visible and near-IR spectrum, and *opaque* to far-IR. You need to let the sun's energy in (mostly visible and near-IR) while making it harder for what the Earth radiates (mostly far-IR) out. A gas that blocks everything evenly is not a greenhouse gas.
Secondly, your argument is akin to saying that if a reflective blanket keeps 95% of your heat in, putting another reflective blanket around you won't help much. Earth is not a simple physics problem with a surface, a single one-pass medium, and an energy input. Light is constantly absorbed and re-radiated all throughout the atmosphere. The upper layers are colder than the upper layers. The higher the absorption of far-IR, the slower energy can transfer from the lower layers to the upper layers; the lower the absorption of near-IR and visible, the faster energy can transfer from the upper layers to the surface (or even straight to the surface). In short, until a 10-meter or so column of atmosphere can absorb 95%, increasing CO2 levels is a *major* impactor on surface temperature.
Lastly, water vapor is 100% feedback, not forcing. Water vapor has a tiny residency in the atmosphere (days), while CO2 has a long residency (hundreds of years). Any disequilibrium in water vapor is rapidly remedied. Now, on *geological time scales*, CO2 is feedback, mostly to Milankovitch cycles. But that's on the scale of tens of thousands of years.
The effect of increasing CO2 concentration is therefore only to cause absorption to occur at a slightly lower altitude in the atmosphere and after carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation, it quickly collides with nearby, and far more abundant, oxygen and nitrogen molecules, transferring heat to them. These then re-radiate heat out into space.
Wow, was the person you read that from a comedian or just an idiot? CO2 is perfectly capable of radiating IR. *All* objects in the universe are. It doesn't matter whether it's CO2, O2, N2, or what. There are different spectral lines (rather than a perfect blackbody), but it's not a practical distinction. The energy can be radiated in any direction -- up or down. It's almost invariably reabsorbed unless it's in the outermost fringes of the atmosphere. As mentioned before, the more transparent the atmosphere is to "incoming" radiation types, the faster solar energy can migrate to the surface. The less transparent it is to "outgoing" types, the slower far-IR energy can migrate away from the surface. I can make you a drawing or a rudimentary python script to illustrate this concept if you're still having trouble with it.
So...if carbon dioxide is not changing our climate, what is? Look to the Sun
I know where it went; it is called the carbon cycle. All that CO2 is either in the oceans, in plants/animals and in the air as CO2. I just saved you $273 million dollars, and I take a 10% cut. Check please.
The point is to know precisely where it's going, to know how much its future capacity to soak carbon will be. For example, here's a known case: the oceans. Since we know that a lot of it is going to the oceans, and how much, we can determine what it's carbon soaking capacity will be in the future as it gets more and more saturated. But, to pick some random possibility... carbonates formed from exposed surface rock. If we don't how much CO2 is going into forming additional carbonates naturally, we have no ability to model how much that ability will fade off in the future.
The current models, which generally assume that unknown carbon sinks will remain equally able to keep sinking an unlimited amount of carbon into the future, are likely very overly optimistic on this front on this front.
We've probably made the world a better place for our friends who breathe the stuff.
Most of the world's oceans (2/3rds of the world's available area for photosynthesis) are not CO2-limited, but nutrient-limited. In particular, iron.
Can someone please answer this: If we are burning fossil fuels; presumably all this carbon we are burning was part of the carbon cycle 100s of millions of years ago.
Not necessarily. Oil, and even natural gas and coal deposits are just a fraction of all entombed carbon. There's also shales and all sorts of carbonate minerals. Carbon levels are constantly in flux. Back during the Cambrian, they hit as high as 7,000 ppm. By the mid-Carboniferous, they were down to around 350 ppm. But that took place over the course of 250 million years, an average change of 1ppm every 40,000 years. Some periods were steeper than others, of course; the mid Devonian dropped a ppm every few thousand years, and there are probably more dramatic spikes that we just don't have the resolution to see (more like what we see in the Holocene record). But nothing in the historical record even approaches a relentless 1 1/2 ppm/year.
It's not *that* the Earth is changing. The Earth always changes. The problem is how fast it's changing. I don't know about yours, but my species certainly can't rapidly evolve over the course of a few dozen generations. And much of our infrastructure is fixed in place, unable to adapt at all; you can't just pack people up from areas that are drying out and move them to new Canadian/Siberian farmland without huge expense and hardship.
Very classy there. Oh, sure, go ahead -- lump us in with those two groups of anti-scientific, peer-reviewed-research-denying kooks. But I can assure you, we'll be getting the last laugh when you sail off the edge of the Earth.
The part of a mailto URI that's equivalent to the DNS is the email adddress, and yes, it is no more than 255 characters. Your link doesn't state that *entire URIs* should be no more than 255 characters.
This isn't a feedback form. It's a series of complex configuration details that you're not just going to write on a whim (if it was written on a whim, I wouldn't accept it as a preset). The various drivetrain stats may have several hundred entries each. You're not going to do this in a net cafe. And if you use only webmail, you can just copy it. It's not worth coding what basically amounts to an indirect email form which not only takes more work, but provides another thing that could break, raises issues of popup blockers, and so on. It's something that is going to be used only rarely, but when it is used, the person using it is going to have the motive to make sure it works. If it does prove to be a problem, I'll switch to a serverside form, but at this point, that doesn't pass scrutiny on a cost-benefit analysis.
I just had to fix two IE-specific bugs. One, IE doesn't play nicely with Google Maps. It pretends like your internet connection is down and asks you to diagnose it (rather than report a page error) if you don't defer all loading of anything related to Google Maps until the DOM is fully loaded. That was a PITA to figure out the proper incandation to convince it to work right, especially since it faked having no net connection rather than report a site error, and refused to uncache its copies unless I deleted browser history. The other was related to it insisting on making me manually reset an IFRAME that was returned by some CGI; sometimes, when the page finished loading, IE would inexplicably wipe out the IFRAME's contents, including a DIV I needed to use. But not immediately. Also a pain, and also, naturally, IE was the only browser that had this behavior.
How can anyone defend this piece of junk?
GET is a type of HTTP request. Mailto isn't HTTP. Why isn't this the beginning and end of this conversation right there?
Show me one proxy server in use today that limits GETs more than IE. As though that's a valid justification -- limiting, what, 85% of the computers on the net because some proxy might possibly do it for them?
As stated, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for a long GET URL -- Google Maps being a good example (they have to limit it to be compatible with IE). But that's not even applicable, because mailto is not a GET request in the first place. What exactly is setting method to POST even supposed to do? POST to your email client instead of GET? How do you start up a program with POST rather than GET? Get and POST are HTTP requests, and mailto is not HTTP. Doing a mailto in an HREF is the standard way to do it.
I can't believe we're even having to have this debate. IE is imposing a non-spec limit on the wrong type of URI in a way that breaks the standard way of doing a common function. That's a bug.
Mailto isn't GET. It's not even HTTP. It's just a URI shortcut for "open an email client". Mailto in an HREF is the *standard* way of spawning an email client. And IE's 2083 character limit is something that they made up that is not called for by spec anyway, and it interferes with perfectly legitimate uses.
To sum up:
1) There is no spec limit for GET lengths. Microsoft decided to make one up. And they made it tiny.
2) mailto is not a GET request. According to the spec, "No additional information other than an Internet mailing address is present or implied." Microsoft decided to interpret it as a GET request, probably due to lazy coding.
3) HTTP/1.1 RFC applies to *http*. Mailto is not http.
Their choice of behavior is both in violation of specs *and* a big annoyance. And it's just one random example out of hundreds that I've encountered. 9 times out of ten, if one browser isn't working and every other one is, that one is IE.
Maybe because it is a HTML (version 1?) standard for GET and the other browsers ignores it?
No, it isn't. Even Microsoft admits as much.
RFC 2616, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1," does not specify any requirement for URL length.
It's their own made-up lousy limit.