Yes. You are right. And currently about 1/4 of our emitted carbon is being sequestered by new plant growth that is outpacing plant death: http://climatechangenationalfo...
When I was in graduate school, that was the first time that scientists came to grips with the fact that half of the missing carbon is going into the land. The reason that was a surprise is that it is not enough just to have photosynthesis taking CO2 out of the air, what we are saying is the growth of new plants is more than the death of old plants. Things are growing faster than they are dying–and this is across the world, which was really a surprise. Almost all ecologists and forestry people before that discovery thought it was the opposite. They thought stuff was dying faster than it was growing. They thought tropical deforestation, plowing the prairie, cutting down the forest to build suburbs — all that stuff was, on the net, turning plant material into CO2. But they were wrong. On the net the CO2 is actually turning into plant material. - See more at: http://climatechangenationalfo...
Of course it is not certain whether we are trading trees for algae, but the fact is that we have more scrubbers now than before.
The site has a science bias. It publishes articles written by scientists. Obviously this doesn't play well for those interested in the various narratives spun by Watts Up with That.
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty
Feynman didn't mean that we could not use science to make predictions or decisions. Quite the opposite. He meant that scientists are equipped to deal with uncertainty. Science is a great tool in spite of the uncertainty.
Our understanding of the climate is vast, yet there is uncertainty. That is not a scary word to scientists - even though it may be for laymen. We can still use science to evaluate the true cost of burning fossil fuels and make intelligent decisions based on that.
ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict
Although they don't predict the timing of such events, I was under the impression that these properties did emerge in the models. For example: http://www.eposters.net/pdfs/e...
As well as being the foremost expert in radiative physics, he is also an expert in digital forensics. He claims that Obama is not eligible for presidency - he has "proof" that Obama's birth certificate is fake - (but don't call him a birther!)
NZ is right behind Australia for number of cancer cases. I tried to find stats for skin cancer only but was unable. A nation of heavy smokers would skew the results if looking at all cancers. Are Australians and New Zealanders heavy smokers?
Australians suffer the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Being located close to the ozone hole over the Antarctic means they are exposed to higher levels of UV radiation.
For reference, a skyscraper is expected to kill 24 birds a year. Quite a bit less than the 1000 per solar collector, but it turns out to be a rather large number as we have quite a few skyscrapers.
Scientific theories are disproved... How many scientific theories have lasted 500 years? 100 years? Or even 50 years?
The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old, so it is unlikely that any of her findings are older. Even so, none of the three examples will be overturned after 500 years. It is implausible that we will eventually find out that vaccines actually don't work, or that evolution isn't really happening, etc. We have observed all of these.
You haven't made the case for that and I am certain you are incapable of doing so. I'm not interested in hearing what you wish were so. Nature doesn't care, you don't care, but society does and you're going to have to live with that.
That is only true if you live in a third world country. Possibly you do. In first world countries we have a good track record of managing our resources.
Ok. How about this: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate, but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA).
Gee, I wonder why? Could be resource management? Looks like we've come full circle. Nature doesn't care. We do. You may not, but luckily we are not entrusting our resource management to you.
A libertarian would disagree with you. Nature is a bitch, and may smash down your house without regard. But I am not, and may not do so in a lawful society. As a hunter, I understand the importance of managing our resources. You may not understand, but you are still not permitted to squander my resource.
Wow! The double-down. I didn't (but probably should have) see that coming. So did I summarize your position accurately: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate (because you read it on the internet), but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. You are right. And currently about 1/4 of our emitted carbon is being sequestered by new plant growth that is outpacing plant death: http://climatechangenationalfo...
Plant growth is actually outpacing plant death:
When I was in graduate school, that was the first time that scientists came to grips with the fact that half of the missing carbon is going into the land. The reason that was a surprise is that it is not enough just to have photosynthesis taking CO2 out of the air, what we are saying is the growth of new plants is more than the death of old plants. Things are growing faster than they are dying–and this is across the world, which was really a surprise. Almost all ecologists and forestry people before that discovery thought it was the opposite. They thought stuff was dying faster than it was growing. They thought tropical deforestation, plowing the prairie, cutting down the forest to build suburbs — all that stuff was, on the net, turning plant material into CO2. But they were wrong. On the net the CO2 is actually turning into plant material. - See more at: http://climatechangenationalfo...
Of course it is not certain whether we are trading trees for algae, but the fact is that we have more scrubbers now than before.
The site has a science bias. It publishes articles written by scientists. Obviously this doesn't play well for those interested in the various narratives spun by Watts Up with That.
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty
Feynman didn't mean that we could not use science to make predictions or decisions. Quite the opposite. He meant that scientists are equipped to deal with uncertainty. Science is a great tool in spite of the uncertainty.
Our understanding of the climate is vast, yet there is uncertainty. That is not a scary word to scientists - even though it may be for laymen. We can still use science to evaluate the true cost of burning fossil fuels and make intelligent decisions based on that.
ENSO, PDO and AMO cycles, which most models don't attempt to predict
Although they don't predict the timing of such events, I was under the impression that these properties did emerge in the models. For example: http://www.eposters.net/pdfs/e...
As well as being the foremost expert in radiative physics, he is also an expert in digital forensics. He claims that Obama is not eligible for presidency - he has "proof" that Obama's birth certificate is fake - (but don't call him a birther!)
Here is what the temperature trendline looked like before and after 1999: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
"flatline" is really the wrong word...
NZ is right behind Australia for number of cancer cases. I tried to find stats for skin cancer only but was unable. A nation of heavy smokers would skew the results if looking at all cancers. Are Australians and New Zealanders heavy smokers?
Australians suffer the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Being located close to the ozone hole over the Antarctic means they are exposed to higher levels of UV radiation.
For reference, a skyscraper is expected to kill 24 birds a year. Quite a bit less than the 1000 per solar collector, but it turns out to be a rather large number as we have quite a few skyscrapers.
Scientific theories are disproved... How many scientific theories have lasted 500 years? 100 years? Or even 50 years?
The three cases in question (evolution, global warming, and vaccines) have all been around for more than 100 years. The practice of science (or natural philosophy) is not 500 years old, so it is unlikely that any of her findings are older. Even so, none of the three examples will be overturned after 500 years. It is implausible that we will eventually find out that vaccines actually don't work, or that evolution isn't really happening, etc. We have observed all of these.
You haven't made the case for that and I am certain you are incapable of doing so. I'm not interested in hearing what you wish were so. Nature doesn't care, you don't care, but society does and you're going to have to live with that.
I have no idea where you live that you think you have the freedom to kill endangered animals. 'Round here we have laws.
Are you really unaware that there are laws in a lawful society?
That is only true if you live in a third world country. Possibly you do. In first world countries we have a good track record of managing our resources.
Ok. How about this: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate, but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA).
Luckily for humanity it doesn't work that way. You don't have exclusivity over any of the species.
Gee, I wonder why? Could be resource management? Looks like we've come full circle. Nature doesn't care. We do. You may not, but luckily we are not entrusting our resource management to you.
That's great if you are into hunting titmice. I'd prefer that we preserve larger game as I'm a fan of steak.
A libertarian would disagree with you. Nature is a bitch, and may smash down your house without regard. But I am not, and may not do so in a lawful society. As a hunter, I understand the importance of managing our resources. You may not understand, but you are still not permitted to squander my resource.
When we do not tread lightly, we are deciding. I agree that we do not have the wisdom to decide. That is why we should tread lightly.
Wow! The double-down. I didn't (but probably should have) see that coming. So did I summarize your position accurately: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate (because you read it on the internet), but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA).
Can't say I'm super flattered to be mistaken for a sock puppet XD
I would also like to point out here the absolutely amazing fact that "Layzej" stopped replying the moment you popped up. What a "coincidence".
I hope you realize how crazy this makes you sound.
nature doesn't care if cute animals survive, or if large animals survive, or if *any* animals survive.
But we do... which is why we should tread lightly.