INAL, but two things obviously are wrong with your post:
(1) This case is in civil court. This is not a criminal case, so the police probably weren't involved.
(2) If someone was caught writing libel on bathroom walls, the person being libeled would have grounds to sue.
The internet is new ("virgin" somehow doesn't seem appropriate here) technology, but laws still apply. Weaving campaigns of lies against individuals is punishable in civil court. A person is naive if they think they automatically can say anything they want on the internet, without accountability. Unless you take serious precautions (pay cash at random internet cafes?), your IP address is recorded, and you can be tracked.
Al Gore appears to have listened to the scientists, and more-or-less understands what the data and the models are telling us about global warming.
To clarify this point: I'd listen to Angelina Jolie expound on General Relativity if what she said was accurate. I wouldn't listen if she started pitching a perpetual motion machine. (I'd watch either way.)
It's not about the person presenting the theory. It's about how well the theory is supported by data.
30 years ago there were a couple articles in popular magazines pointing out that up until 10,000 years ago, Europe an North America underwent repeated, frequent ice ages. They had not measured the Earth cooling in the 30 years prior. Gerald Ford did not get an Ocscar or a Nobel Prize for a movie about Global Cooling. Global cooling was never taken seriously then in the way that global warming now is.
Now we have measured the Earth warming. We have tried to model it, and the only reasonable explanation is human emissions of greenhouse gases. It now appears the North Pole will melt this year.
How much longer do you want to wait for "definitive evidence" that global warming is happening, and that we're causing it? Until drought wrecks the farm economy of California? Until Florida disappears back into the ocean? Until the oil and the coal runs out, and there's no longer economic incentive for people to stick their heads in the sand?
There are several reasons I am planning to give a government job a try. I expect to have a flexible schedule that will let me be home with my family more. I expect to be in an academic environment, in which the ideas I generate are valued by more than just profit. I expect my job will not be disrupted by buyouts. Everyone I know at this job loves it. I can't say the same for most of the private companies my friends have worked for.
Then again, I am just finishing my sixth year as a postdoc, so pretty much anything would be an improvement.
This is the idea behind the "Space Interferometry Mission, PlanetQuest". You don't even need a very long baseline to make significant progress. If it goes forward (it has a troubled political history with NASA), it would be placed in an orbit around the Sun, trailing the Earth.
If you want to do science, you have to use numbers properly.
You can put some numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law (this guy does the same thing), and if the Sun's radiation was all that was keeping the Earth warm, the average temperature would be 278 degrees Kelvin, or 5 degrees Celsius. In fact, the average temperature of Earth is closer to 15 degrees Celsius.
Why the discrepancy? The atmosphere traps heat, allowing the sun's visible light to penetrate to the ground, but preventing much of the infrared light form escaping. This is referred to as the "greenhouse effect". This is roughly why almost all scientists agree that changes to the atmosphere (such as volcanic eruptions or human emissions of carbon dioxide and methane) can change the Earth's temperature.
Could the Sun be getting brighter, thus explaining global warming? Interestingly, in 28 years of monitoring from space-based observatories, the solar irradiance has only varied in amplitude by about 0.2% (that's 0.002). That represents changes in the brightness of the Sun caused by the 11 year solar cycle. There is no evidence that the solar irradiance has increased (e.g., Frohlich & Lean 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12, 273; sorry I can't easily find something freely available outside of a university library). By your estimate, we require about a 1.2% increase in the Sun's intensity to account for global warming. There is no evidence the Sun could be the main cause of global warming.
Incidentally, Jupiter is not getting warmer. A large storm is redistributing heat in the atmosphere, which is very different (I'd say the science media interpreted that one wrong). The Mars data is controversial, because it covers a short time span, and was measured with two different instruments. The measurements on Earth are more reliable.
Please spend some quiet time in the Chapel of Science, considering these facts.
Why the discrepancy? The atmosphere traps heat, allowing the Sun's visible light to penetrate to the ground, but preventing much of the infrared light form escaping. This is referred to as the "greenhouse effect". This is roughly why almost all scientists agree that changes to the atmosphere (such as volcanic eruptions or human emissions of carbon dioxide and methane) can change the Earth's temperature.
Could the Sun be getting brighter, thus explaining global warming? Interestingly, in 28 years of monitoring from space-based observatories, the solar irradiance has only varied in amplitude by ~0.2% (thats 0.002; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/).
The only long-term trends in the brightness of the Sun are those of the 11 year solar cycle.
By your estimate, we require a ~1.2% increase in the Sun's intensity to account for global warming. There is no evidence the Sun has brightened that much, even if we try to apply recent measurements to data taken over the last few centuries (e.g., Frohlich & Lean 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12, 273; sorry I can't easily find something freely available outside of a university library).
You don't have to trust me --- you can examine all this yourself.
Typically, these missions will go into orbit on a Pegasus rocket, which costs on order $25 million (http://www.space.com/news/smalllaunch_fl_040223.html). So, the $105 million to design and build the satellite, and then to operate it when it is orbit (about 10% of the total cost) is quite a bit more than the launch.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) This case is in civil court. This is not a criminal case, so the police probably weren't involved.
(2) If someone was caught writing libel on bathroom walls, the person being libeled would have grounds to sue.
The internet is new ("virgin" somehow doesn't seem appropriate here) technology, but laws still apply. Weaving campaigns of lies against individuals is punishable in civil court. A person is naive if they think they automatically can say anything they want on the internet, without accountability. Unless you take serious precautions (pay cash at random internet cafes?), your IP address is recorded, and you can be tracked.
Al Gore appears to have listened to the scientists, and more-or-less understands what the data and the models are telling us about global warming.
To clarify this point: I'd listen to Angelina Jolie expound on General Relativity if what she said was accurate. I wouldn't listen if she started pitching a perpetual motion machine. (I'd watch either way.)
It's not about the person presenting the theory. It's about how well the theory is supported by data.
30 years ago there were a couple articles in popular magazines pointing out that up until 10,000 years ago, Europe an North America underwent repeated, frequent ice ages. They had not measured the Earth cooling in the 30 years prior. Gerald Ford did not get an Ocscar or a Nobel Prize for a movie about Global Cooling. Global cooling was never taken seriously then in the way that global warming now is.
Now we have measured the Earth warming. We have tried to model it, and the only reasonable explanation is human emissions of greenhouse gases. It now appears the North Pole will melt this year.
How much longer do you want to wait for "definitive evidence" that global warming is happening, and that we're causing it? Until drought wrecks the farm economy of California? Until Florida disappears back into the ocean? Until the oil and the coal runs out, and there's no longer economic incentive for people to stick their heads in the sand?
There are several reasons I am planning to give a government job a try. I expect to have a flexible schedule that will let me be home with my family more. I expect to be in an academic environment, in which the ideas I generate are valued by more than just profit. I expect my job will not be disrupted by buyouts. Everyone I know at this job loves it. I can't say the same for most of the private companies my friends have worked for.
Then again, I am just finishing my sixth year as a postdoc, so pretty much anything would be an improvement.
This is the idea behind the "Space Interferometry Mission, PlanetQuest". You don't even need a very long baseline to make significant progress. If it goes forward (it has a troubled political history with NASA), it would be placed in an orbit around the Sun, trailing the Earth.
Dear Moraelin,
If you want to do science, you have to use numbers properly.
You can put some numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law (this guy does the same thing), and if the Sun's radiation was all that was keeping the Earth warm, the average temperature would be 278 degrees Kelvin, or 5 degrees Celsius. In fact, the average temperature of Earth is closer to 15 degrees Celsius.
Why the discrepancy? The atmosphere traps heat, allowing the sun's visible light to penetrate to the ground, but preventing much of the infrared light form escaping. This is referred to as the "greenhouse effect". This is roughly why almost all scientists agree that changes to the atmosphere (such as volcanic eruptions or human emissions of carbon dioxide and methane) can change the Earth's temperature.
Could the Sun be getting brighter, thus explaining global warming? Interestingly, in 28 years of monitoring from space-based observatories, the solar irradiance has only varied in amplitude by about 0.2% (that's 0.002). That represents changes in the brightness of the Sun caused by the 11 year solar cycle. There is no evidence that the solar irradiance has increased (e.g., Frohlich & Lean 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12, 273; sorry I can't easily find something freely available outside of a university library). By your estimate, we require about a 1.2% increase in the Sun's intensity to account for global warming. There is no evidence the Sun could be the main cause of global warming.
Incidentally, Jupiter is not getting warmer. A large storm is redistributing heat in the atmosphere, which is very different (I'd say the science media interpreted that one wrong). The Mars data is controversial, because it covers a short time span, and was measured with two different instruments. The measurements on Earth are more reliable.
Please spend some quiet time in the Chapel of Science, considering these facts.
--Endstar
If you want to do science, you have to use numbers properly.
I've put some numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law (see also http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node85.html), and if the Sun's radiation was all that was keeping the Earth warm, the average temperature would be 278 degrees Kelvin, or 5 degrees Celsius. In fact, the average temperature of Earth is closer to 15 degrees Celsius (see "terrestrial atmosphere" on http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html).
Why the discrepancy? The atmosphere traps heat, allowing the Sun's visible light to penetrate to the ground, but preventing much of the infrared light form escaping. This is referred to as the "greenhouse effect". This is roughly why almost all scientists agree that changes to the atmosphere (such as volcanic eruptions or human emissions of carbon dioxide and methane) can change the Earth's temperature.
Could the Sun be getting brighter, thus explaining global warming? Interestingly, in 28 years of monitoring from space-based observatories, the solar irradiance has only varied in amplitude by ~0.2% (thats 0.002; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/). The only long-term trends in the brightness of the Sun are those of the 11 year solar cycle. By your estimate, we require a ~1.2% increase in the Sun's intensity to account for global warming. There is no evidence the Sun has brightened that much, even if we try to apply recent measurements to data taken over the last few centuries (e.g., Frohlich & Lean 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics Review, 12, 273; sorry I can't easily find something freely available outside of a university library).
You don't have to trust me --- you can examine all this yourself.
--Endstar
Typically, these missions will go into orbit on a Pegasus rocket, which costs on order $25 million (http://www.space.com/news/smalllaunch_fl_040223.html). So, the $105 million to design and build the satellite, and then to operate it when it is orbit (about 10% of the total cost) is quite a bit more than the launch.