hah... you think anything you said made any material difference?
Name a government in the world with a stronger track record of protecting speech. So you put it in the hands of multiple governments that have bad to okay records? Yippy.
And it gets worse because you also cited corporations which also have bad records. Look at Twitter. Look at Facebook. Look at Reddit. Corporations are just as bad if not worse.
whatever... you want to stick your dick in that food processor... go for it. IF its a shitshow, then we can just bypass the poisoned tables. No big deal.
As with most idiot ideas, the food they so wish to savor will turn to ash in their mouths.
Yes yes... its very trendy to hate on the US. But please consider the alternative here. The United Nations? Most nations in the world have a less ironclad notion of free speech than the Americans. To the contrary, the vast majority of governments desire radically restricted speech.
And surrendering ICANN to these people is likely to result in new rules put in place to restrict speech more than anything.
Keep in mind, why do these countries want authority over ICANN? What is it doing or not doing that they don't like? What would the US government be saying yes or no to here that has them so upset?
To those that will cite snowden in all situations, keep in mind that the push to get ICANN under international control predated that and regardless taking ICANN from the US won't change any of that anyway.
The entire thing is likely to be a shitshow.
That said, the good news is that ICANN just controls the DNS registries... so... worst case, if the whomevers fuck it up beyond repair we can just bypass their fuckwitted tables and use our own.
*yawn*... the United States put your monkey asses back together after WW2 and as evidenced by that little gem of a post the entire venture was merited us not a bit of gratitude nor extracted from you not a shred of humility.
For all your presumptions of superiority your people fail a lot and need to be bailed out or supported by more competent powers.
Consider for a moment that you are the dumb ones here. The empirical results if nothing else suggest that judgment.
If you can't handle the truth... so be it. Not everyone is perfect.
This is mindless propaganda and rather insulting to the skilled labor in Germany. You're suggesting that the skilled labor in Germany isn't that skilled and that any yak farmer in north Africa can replace them given five minutes with a wiki on operating complicated machinery.
What you're not allowing yourself to face is the reality that many of these people are illiterate on top of all the other f'ing problems. They many can't read or write in their native tongue much less speak/read/write german.
The entire project was a folly by failing political coalition that thought they could secure long term political security by importing voters. The results are a dramatic failure.
But again... I don't care because I don't live in Germany. Germany has a long history of making very stupid self destructive choices. And apparently they've learned nothing.
Oh well... and again... because I'm sure this wasn't chiseled into stone deeply enough... I don't care if they implode. Go ahead and kill yourselves. Just don't ask me to clean up the mess.
Government doesn't reduce its labor force voluntarily... ever attempt to reduce the bureaucracy has failed because the bureaucracy actively resists it.
Are you willing to go to war with the public sector unions and political interests? If so and you have the muscle behind you to do it... then you might have a chance. If not, then at best you'll merely add to the bureaucracy while doing nothing to reduce it.
Why do you think we have Rubber Rooms in the US to house teachers deemed unfit to teach students yet it is impossible to actually fire them. They are kept on the pay roll... in rooms to do make work projects on the hope that some day some how they'll resign which is pretty much the only way many School Districts can get rid of horrible teachers. And that syndrome is systemic... we see that throughout our institutions. And it is fairly common in Europe as well. Exceptions exist but assuming you can fire a bunch of government employees without a shit storm is naive.
The cost savings of these little ventures would require a sharp blade and a firm will. I see nothing of that in this project and so have nothing more than disgust and contempt for the entire enterprise.
Every time people like you say some new entitlement program will be cost neutral... it isn't.
The track record of people like you to accurately predict the consequences of your programs is horrible. Where as the track record of people like me to cite what will happen with stuff like this is actually quite good.
But again... I DON"T CARE. I don't live in Europe so this really isn't my problem so long as it is understood that when you inevidably blow your brains all over the ceiling... I am under no obligation what so ever morally, socially, legally, militarily, economically, etc to get a sponge and clean up the mess.
If you are prepared to take full responsibility which means owning the consequences entirely with no calls for IMF bailouts or anything of that nature... then go for it. I'm f'ing gravy with your whole program. You want to inject bleach into your eyeballs? I'll SELL you the bleach and post pictures of you doing it on the internet.
I DO NOT CARE.
But... I am not going to lift so much as a finger when the thing I told you was going to happen... happens. https://youtu.be/ARDhJ2dpuYU?t...
We're already seeing the system buckle and fail. Greece crashed, Germany, France, Sweden, etc are cracking under the migrant issue to say nothing for a turning economy. Germany for example depends very very very heavily on exports... and the export economy is facing a cyclical downturn.
And amongst all this... you want to dramatically expand government expenses and raise taxes?
This like suggesting Europe stick a shotgun in its mouth and pull the trigger with its toe.
Do whatever makes you happy. Just don't ask me to clean the brain matter off the ceiling.
As to scientists studying things... yes and they also disagree about stuff. So... that's a wash. The issue is more controversial among scientists than you're admitting. This is especially true of the details. That X or Y does something is generally not in contention. However, the extent, cause, and solutions are highly variable. And suggesting that there is a consensus when everyone knows the 97% study was a farce is not helpful to this discussion.
As to you not considering something until scientists take it seriously... I think I gave you a study that literally said what I just said. So you are now either taking it seriously or you are contradicting yourself. Choose.
As to the various IPCC working groups... remove the second and third working groups and we can talk about science alone. Keep them there and we're going to maintain an element of politics. I mean... listen to these idiots: "" Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worldâ(TM)s resources will be negotiated.
Frankly, I'd like to just not talk about the UN because if we do then it is just going to be a lot of political crap because I have a basically endless list of reasons for not feeling comfortable with them as a source. We can talk about any other source... but if you really want to do the whole IPCC thing then I'm going to hammer the politics until you stop it.
... A place in the ocean is too acidic... so they moved the operation to another place in the ocean... that is less acidic... because the whole ocean is becoming too acidic?
Do you see the problem here?
No doubt some portions of the ocean become less alkaline. I already addressed that. However, since the issues are localized... the issue is localized.
As to whether I'm worried about density etc... I'm not worried. Other people are trying to say I should be... but I'm not.
As to why something is a greenhouse gas... more an issue of not seeing why it matters. The heat will be conducted regardless. I mean sure... lets say you absorb short wave radiation... great. But that doesn't mean you retain the heat which is the actual issue in the lower atmosphere. Molecules are going to bump into other molecules. I could grant that heat might take longer to transition out of the lower atmosphere but the issue here is whether temperatures are built up over long periods of time... not... short periods of time. And over the long term the heat should work its way up. And the greater the differential the more vigerous will be the transfer of energy. I mean... think of a tea kettle. The heat isn't going to stay in the lower atmosphere. And its worse than that because obviously the hotter the lower atmosphere gets the more the gas will expand assuming the heat is trapped for some magical reason... which would mean the lower atmosphere would expand... because its a gas... and gases expand when they're heated unless kept under pressure... in which case the pressure just goes up... but in this case it would just inflate like a balloon. But that's assuming the heat would be trapped... which I don't buy.
Seriously, how do you trap the heat in the lower atmosphere in the first place? saying "oh it absorbs short wave radiation" doesn't some how make CO2 a perfect insulator or something. The heat won't be trapped. I mean again... how?
Lets say I put on a space suit... and I surround that space suit with a bubble of CO2... and then I walk around in some place horribly cold... pick a pole... Am I some how not going to freeze to death? Obviously absent some sort of heating element... I will freeze fucking solid given time. I grant that the CO2 might resist the transfer but I don't see how that is relevant over long periods of time.... Skipping over the various insults you use to disguise no meaningful responses and logging all such points as sustained until addressed more substantively.
I will note you seem to be claiming some familiarity with me and presuming by that extraction to make judgements of me. While at the same time I'll note that you're logging in under an AC account and thus no one knows anything about you. If you've talked to me before, then I can only assume you've already been chided for having a double standard where you presume to question my history while of course hiding your own.
I think I'll just respond that since you're a confessed child molester, you probably don't have a lot of room to be judgmental there. Absent you actually logging in... I'll just assume the worst. Seems fair.
As to your sad attempt to defend your claim that you have telepathic powers... I can only roll my eyes. You can't read people's minds over the internet... and you can't fly... and you don't have laser vision. Doubt me? Jump off the highest building you can find and tell me how that works out for you. Absent that, stop claiming to have super powers... unless you're Tom Cruse and apparently Scientology does give super powers. In which case... it must be awesome to be you.
Well sure... potency is an issue. But you can't quantify that and whether or not CO2 is even doing anything besides what it would do if it were any gas in the atmosphere in relation to temperature is controversial.
The numbers cited for what it does even among true believers are all over the place.
As to laypeople, anyone can claim superiority and then drop the mic claiming to have won. If that's what you want to do... go for it. The requirements to make that argument are roughly zero... aka someone that knew nothing could make the same argument. For the sake of argument... if you're right and I'm such a fool... grasp that I could make the same argument you just made there... I could claim "oh you just don't understand" and then claim victory and walk. So forgive me if I don't find that argument to be especially compelling.
If you'd like to chime in, your opinion would be more than welcome. However, know that if you are attempting to support someone rhetorically or politically... your support will be taken as rhetorical or political support... not scientific support.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the issue of what is and is not science. Science is not a logical fallacy. Science is not a circle jerk of "well more people agree with me so the world must be flat".
Science isn't about voting or opinions. Its about figuring out how the universe works. Its about humbling ourselves before the cosmos itself and patiently attempting to grasp its nature. Who you are or who I am is immaterial. The whole pathetic layperson argument was a sad attempt to legitimize an ad hominem. And you're right... to fallacies, pathos, and various appeals to popularity... I don't listen to it... in a scientific argument... because those points are irrelevant in this context.
Why are they not green house gases? You don't think if we had a dense oxygen atmosphere that we would retain that heat?
Why is something a green house gas and something not? From what I'm seeing here they should be roughly analogous.
So you're worried about naturally produced green house gases... hmmm... I guess we're going to have to send some emissions credits to the swamps and volcanoes then... also oceans because water vapor has to be a green house gas.
As to laypeople, the problem is that when you talk down like that you use terms that while perhaps easier to understand are not correct. What is more, most laypeople don't grasp things because they don't care... I mean... its a matter of time spent trying to understand which is typically low with things that people don't care about. When you ask for trillions of dollars people care... lay or not. And using that term in that context only creates confusion, makes the people using the term sound like con artists, and generally isn't helpful. The more correct and scientifically defensible position is what should be used... to the exclusion of whatever some PR wonk might think is a better product to sell. Keep in mind, people trust scientists... they do not trust sales people, marketing people, public relations people, or politicians. So... don't let them form the argument if you want it to be above reproach.
As to my persecution complex... its not a complex if its earned. And it is.:)
As to heat trapping, the greater the energy differential between two things in contact with each other the greater the flow of energy between them shall become. There are resistances but given that gases expand when heated... I question whether this will work exactly the way they think it will. I can think of a lot of buffering and countering elements that are not addressed in these discussions.
As to energy being reflected back towards the earth... it is still absorbed by the atmosphere and radiated up through the atmosphere one way or another. You can slow that energy transfer but you can't stop it. Now the notion here is that you're slowing it enough that you're retaining and building up heat. I question that because as the energy differential increases the rate of transmission has to increase... and then you have all sorts of things going on with gases that are heated. Air can insulate... but... as any man standing next to a fire will say... he's getting plenty warm standing where he is... I grant you can have certain chemicals that will slow the transmission of energy... I just question whether that is relevant over long spans of time.
As to doctorates... don't drop that and then get upset when I accuse you of browbeating. You're earning it.
As to quibbling over numbers... sure... I mean, I would also agree there would be a point where if we brought enough rocks back from space that it would increase the earth's gravity to such an extent that it would become unpleasant for our species or have other negative effects. My quibble as you put it is that this is not a reasonable thing to worry about at this juncture as the threshold in the "numbers" is so far beyond what is currently happening as to make the question a nonsense.
As to temper tantrums... pot kettle black... stones and glass houses. Your clearly fishing for a SOCIAL excuse to walk away from this discussion... looking for some social slight that gives you the ability to feign offense and walk away. If you want to abandon your position and leave the discussion... you just had to say that. No need to sink to these pretenses, friend.
As to me being too "emotional"... You have no idea what my emotions are... unless you're now pretending to have magical powers on top of knowledge of a subject that so far you've done no more than quote verbatim from the most basic texts without any particular depth.
Then you agree the term "green house gas" is redundant because any gas will function that way in sufficient quantity. Which is to say vastly beyond whatever we've done thus far or shall do by burning fossil fuels.
As to your presumption to browbeat by throwing around the term "layperson" as if no one can grasp the concepts. Presume what you will about the general public. However, as you address me, I would prefer if you didn't try the lazy argument of "Oh I would explain it but you're too stupid to understand so I'll just pretend i know what I'm talking about" argument. If you've got something, then lets hear it. Otherwise, for all anyone knows you're ironically a member of the very ignorant masses you presume to be above.
As to CO2 being relevant because of human industry... the change in the atmosphere of it would have to be a great deal greater than it is for us to care unless there were something special about it. As is... snooze.
Well, acidification isn't an issue because of the vastly more powerful pH equilibrium which is maintained by the various minerals the oceans rest upon. Most issues of decreased alkalinity can be more easily explained by upwellings of cold water which carry a higher concentration of CO2. This is why the seas outgas at the equator and intake as they go to the poles.
As to thousands of years, the seas shouldn't have a problem with it. As to the land, as you say... good for plants.
The only negative consequence you're likely to even try to cite here is ocean acidification which is actually the red herring you keep looking for. The oceans are alkaline and there is no way that you're going to make them acidic. Less alkaline? Maybe... but the variation from what I can see is something like between 8.2 and 7.5 globally and that is from what anyone can tell entirely determined either by local run off and pollution of rivers... or upwellings of cold water in the region. Absent either of those... I'd like to see the data. And if we really want to get serious about the acidification discussion, I'm going to cite the pH records that predate the 90s. You'll see the sine wave.
As to your opinion basically being a political question of "I'll believe this when X people believe it"... fine... that's not a scientific position. Its a political position.
At around 1 bar you can see the temp is around 345K. Earth's norm at 1 atmosphere is about 290K. Relative distance from the sun is 108.2 (10^6 km) versus 149.6(10^6 km). Solar irradiance (W/m2) 2613.9 for earth and 1367.6 for venus with a ratio of 1.911 between the two. I'm grabbing this stuff from wikipedia and NASA.
And beyond that, it was common knowledge in the 1960s that temperature was basically distance from the sun + atmospheric density. its only recently that that has been challenged... and the basis for the challenge is specious.
And since you have already played the political card of "but but but I have a consensus"... You actually don't. The 97% thing was a fraud and I rather suspect you know it.
Do you honestly think I can't get a gaggle of esteemed scientists to gainsay your position? Because it isn't hard. And if do note that it has not gone unnoticed that many of your "supporters" in these institutions aren't even scientists. This is especially true within the UN where many of the authors were not scientists. But it is seen elsewhere as well.
You can't brow beat me. I am not insecure. I am not uneducated. I am not stupid. Bravado and bluster will work with some... not I.
Green house effect implies that there is something special about CO2 when there isn't. There is nothing unique about CO2 that causes it to be more relevant in the atmosphere. And given that the vast majority of its spectrum is shared with water vapor it is if anything less relevant than most chemicals in the atmosphere.
Ocean acidification as previously noted requires the comparatively marginal input of carbonic acid to overwhelm the minerals in contact and in solution with the oceans to be overwhelmed. This is frankly impossible if the source of our emissions continues to be fossil fuels.
As to effects on living things, we're no where near that threshold and will not cross it. So that isn't relevant either.
As to air pressure, you need a gas to compress to have an atmosphere. While it is obvious that larger gravitational bodies tend to have atmopheres if only because they do not permit gases to escape... the point is that if you match air pressures and then compensate for distance from the sun... each atmosphere in our solar system is predictable indifferent to its chemical composition. You don't need to know Jupiter's, Mar's, Venus's, or the Earth's chemical composition to know the temperature of its atmosphere. All you need to know is the distance from the sun and the air pressure. Do you want me to show you graphs and the mathematics? See, if CO2 were so relevant then Venus would be hotter than the earth AFTER doing those calculations. But it isn't. Match air pressure and then compensate for the difference in solar radiation.
As to things being a red herring because numbers don't matter... Numbers matter. If the numbers don't matter then lets just stick bones in our noses and shake sticks at each other. Numbers matter. You say you know we have a problem "now"... but we don't. Right now we're fine. That is self evident. What you're claiming rather is that we'll have a problem in the future. Very well... lets say that is the case for the sake of argument. if things actually start to show some kind of problem... which is not what we have now... then we know how long it lasts in the atmosphere indifferent to how much is there... and we thus know that the time horizon for correcting an error is at most 33 years. Which on a geological time scale is not even an eye blink. The "you must do something now before we're all dooooomed!" talk is silly alarmist nonsense.
As to the limestone already reacting at its maximum rate... That's not how an acid base reaction works. If I expose limestone to an extremely acidic liquid it will react faster than if I expose it to a less acidic liquid. What is more there are minerals that are largely inert at given pH but will react at other pH reacting with either bases or acids. The oceans CANNOT become acidic. it isn't possible. Its like a gnat colliding with a freight train and expecting the freight train to be effected. One of the elements not examined with this nonsense is water temperature and currents. Cold water can contain more CO2 than warm water. A flow of cold water welling up in a warm area will cause CO2 outgasing from the ocean and will cause a LOCAL drop in pH. However for that to happen there has to be a FLOW and the net pH of the ocean is not especially relevant to the issue because it can go up or down and the same effect can be seen at that given locality.
As to biospheres not evolving, then oxygen would not be as prevalent in our atmosphere. It is because of an evolutionary adaptation which altered our atmosphere. What is more bacteria, algae, fungi, and animal life have gone through dramatic economical shifts throughout the history of this world. At no point am I saying the planet is AWARE of anything. Rather, I am saying life on this world... especially simple life has adapted to survive on this world and has experienced far more radical climates than anything our species has experienced. These life forms have adapted... you don't want to call that "learning" okay. But claiming that I am anthropomorphizing the biosphere is frankly ju
As to it being stupid to discuss this... you mean CO2 at all or you just don't like me pointing out problems with your premise that you can't respond to by reading off a card. Because I'm doing that on purpose because it filters out the parrots.
As to red herrings, its not a red herring if we're talking about how long something is going to stay in the atmosphere. And as to it not being safe to sink it... I assume you're talking about ocean acidification which is a silly thing to worry about when you consider the chemistry of the oceans is balanced by the chemistry of the ocean floor and the mineral run off from rivers. Something which anyone knows that has maintained a large aquarium is that you have to be very careful about what sorts of rocks you put in the water. A lot of rocks you just pick off the ground will not be stable at your desired pH. There are tests you can do with the rocks to make sure its safe to use it, etc. But the point is that the ocean floor is covered with minerals like "LIMESTONE" which is inherently basic and the more acid you put into the water the more these rocks are going to react. They react all the time. Trying to acidify the ocean is basically betting that you're creating more carbonic acid in the oceans than the oceans can cancel with the mineral deposits that interact with the oceans. Now... THAT is stupid. That's like saying an insect flying along at 30mph is going to damage a semi truck. Don't be silly. Here you might say "but we've seen recently the oceans have grown more acidic!" Sure. And that has happened in patterns since always. We have ocean pH records that go back at least 100 years and you can see sort of sine wave pattern in the pH values. It goes up and then goes down. There is no trend up.
As to the biosphere not knowing... well... it has evolved to deal with it. If you want to argue that an evolved adaptation is not learned or known that is fine... however, it is an effect that resembles knowledge and learning closely enough to make it a suitable analogy. That said, if you are "triggered" by things that are not literally literal... we can avoid turns of phrase and talk like robots. Not my preference but... whatevhs.
As to wishes and unicorns... in regards to what? As I said, the residency is 33 years. So... given my premise... and given the residency period... I'm not seeing how wishes are required.
So you're saying the problem with CO2 is that it increases atmospheric density?... Do you have any stats on changes in atmospheric air pressure over time?
What is more... The comparative mass of the CO2 to the existing atmosphere would require us to release a great deal more CO2 into the air than we really could to get any kind of significant difference.
And that is discounting that CO2 has a "residence" in the atmosphere of about 33 years.
People keep trying to pretend that CO2 is some kind of toxic chemical that our biosphere doesn't know how to deal with... its comical.
Is CO2 going up? Sure. Emissions are going up. If emissions flatline, then CO2 will likely hold. If human emissions of CO2 stop then CO2 levels will return to natural equilibrium in about 33 years.
We are on the cusp of a lot of technological changes. Flipping our fucking wigs about this is not productive.
So, I need the resources of a nation state or I'm not entitled to a contrary voice?
Riddle me this, guru... why do you have a right to an opinion? Did you launch any sats recently? No?... kay... you're in the same boat I'm in then.
That's the problem with arguments that have no counter... they can get reversed on you and you're no better at surviving them than anyone else.
And that's assuming I find the argument valid... but here's the thing... if I did find your argument valid, then it would mean you wouldn't have a right to an opinion either... and if I don't... then the whole argument is meaningless.
So it is heads you lose and tails I don't care. Just saying.
yeah... one site... and you know there are a fucking million of them that are independently arriving at the same conclusion because if you actually look at the old data and compare it to the new data... you see "this".
If you'd like we can talk about the other planets in our solar system and how it can be shown rather easily that air pressure and distance from the sun are actually the overwhelming drivers of atmospheric temperature and that chemical composition is not especially relevant. I mean... its really easy. Look at any planet in the solar system. and match it with another solar system at equal air pressure. That is... look at the temp data at 1 atmosphere say on Venus and compare to Earth at 1 atmosphere... What you'll find is that Venus while hot is not actually that much hotter than earth. Factor for distance from the sun and the two harmonize. You can do the same thing for Jupiter or Uranius... and if you match at fractions of an atmosphere you can match Mars to earth etc.
Here you'll again tell me "but we did experiments where if you filled a chamber with CO2 it would absorb more heat than if it didn't have CO2"... Great. And did those tests factor for water vapor being a common denominator in both situations? From what I've seen they didn't.
I mean if you want to talk painted window, we can compare the chemical spectrums of CO2 with every other gas in the Earth's atmosphere and subtract from CO2 anything that is already being occluded. What is left as I'm sure you know is a tiny sliver of CO2's full spectrum and given that CO2 is itself not an especially prevalent gas you're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.
It doesn't make sense. And that's why this is an issue that despite all the arrogance and "the science is settled" stupidity... you are losing the argument.
I know, its all the evil oil companies that lie about it... never mind that you have the UN behind you, the US government behind you, and the EU behind you... but you still will probably claim to be the underdogs here. Negative.
The data in the past gets adjusted down... and the data set gets tweaked... again and again and again.
Part of the problem is that all the data is ultimately controlled by the NOAA... I mean all of it. People make much of there being multiple datasets but all of them ultimately refer back to the NOAA. Which means there is only one data set. One. It has never been audited by a third party.
You are unworthy of my respect as evidenced by your pathetic arguments and I feel not only justified but actually obligated to treat you with as much disrespect as is possible over a text box.
What you don't seem to grasp is that your position is so asinine that it has revealed that you are unworthy of this discussion and are polluting the community with what can only be described as rampant stupidity.
I have no power to ban you or remove you from this place but I can at the very least show you what I feel is appropriate contempt for your stupidity.
What is more the supposition here is that you are scoring points by showing yourself to be in emotional control while I am out of control. Not only is the premise of your argument inherently fallacious but the fundamental assumption upon which it is based is also in error.:)
As to the rest... I'm not going back and forth with AC twits. Waste of my time.
Slashdot Mirror
hah... you think anything you said made any material difference?
Name a government in the world with a stronger track record of protecting speech. So you put it in the hands of multiple governments that have bad to okay records? Yippy.
And it gets worse because you also cited corporations which also have bad records. Look at Twitter. Look at Facebook. Look at Reddit. Corporations are just as bad if not worse.
whatever... you want to stick your dick in that food processor... go for it. IF its a shitshow, then we can just bypass the poisoned tables. No big deal.
As with most idiot ideas, the food they so wish to savor will turn to ash in their mouths.
Yes yes... its very trendy to hate on the US. But please consider the alternative here. The United Nations? Most nations in the world have a less ironclad notion of free speech than the Americans. To the contrary, the vast majority of governments desire radically restricted speech.
And surrendering ICANN to these people is likely to result in new rules put in place to restrict speech more than anything.
Keep in mind, why do these countries want authority over ICANN? What is it doing or not doing that they don't like? What would the US government be saying yes or no to here that has them so upset?
To those that will cite snowden in all situations, keep in mind that the push to get ICANN under international control predated that and regardless taking ICANN from the US won't change any of that anyway.
The entire thing is likely to be a shitshow.
That said, the good news is that ICANN just controls the DNS registries... so... worst case, if the whomevers fuck it up beyond repair we can just bypass their fuckwitted tables and use our own.
*yawn*... the United States put your monkey asses back together after WW2 and as evidenced by that little gem of a post the entire venture was merited us not a bit of gratitude nor extracted from you not a shred of humility.
For all your presumptions of superiority your people fail a lot and need to be bailed out or supported by more competent powers.
Consider for a moment that you are the dumb ones here. The empirical results if nothing else suggest that judgment.
If you can't handle the truth... so be it. Not everyone is perfect.
This is mindless propaganda and rather insulting to the skilled labor in Germany. You're suggesting that the skilled labor in Germany isn't that skilled and that any yak farmer in north Africa can replace them given five minutes with a wiki on operating complicated machinery.
What you're not allowing yourself to face is the reality that many of these people are illiterate on top of all the other f'ing problems. They many can't read or write in their native tongue much less speak/read/write german.
The entire project was a folly by failing political coalition that thought they could secure long term political security by importing voters. The results are a dramatic failure.
But again... I don't care because I don't live in Germany. Germany has a long history of making very stupid self destructive choices. And apparently they've learned nothing.
Oh well... and again... because I'm sure this wasn't chiseled into stone deeply enough... I don't care if they implode. Go ahead and kill yourselves. Just don't ask me to clean up the mess.
Government doesn't reduce its labor force voluntarily... ever attempt to reduce the bureaucracy has failed because the bureaucracy actively resists it.
Are you willing to go to war with the public sector unions and political interests? If so and you have the muscle behind you to do it... then you might have a chance. If not, then at best you'll merely add to the bureaucracy while doing nothing to reduce it.
Why do you think we have Rubber Rooms in the US to house teachers deemed unfit to teach students yet it is impossible to actually fire them. They are kept on the pay roll... in rooms to do make work projects on the hope that some day some how they'll resign which is pretty much the only way many School Districts can get rid of horrible teachers. And that syndrome is systemic... we see that throughout our institutions. And it is fairly common in Europe as well. Exceptions exist but assuming you can fire a bunch of government employees without a shit storm is naive.
The cost savings of these little ventures would require a sharp blade and a firm will. I see nothing of that in this project and so have nothing more than disgust and contempt for the entire enterprise.
Every time people like you say some new entitlement program will be cost neutral... it isn't.
The track record of people like you to accurately predict the consequences of your programs is horrible. Where as the track record of people like me to cite what will happen with stuff like this is actually quite good.
But again... I DON"T CARE. I don't live in Europe so this really isn't my problem so long as it is understood that when you inevidably blow your brains all over the ceiling... I am under no obligation what so ever morally, socially, legally, militarily, economically, etc to get a sponge and clean up the mess.
If you are prepared to take full responsibility which means owning the consequences entirely with no calls for IMF bailouts or anything of that nature... then go for it. I'm f'ing gravy with your whole program. You want to inject bleach into your eyeballs? I'll SELL you the bleach and post pictures of you doing it on the internet.
I DO NOT CARE.
But... I am not going to lift so much as a finger when the thing I told you was going to happen... happens.
https://youtu.be/ARDhJ2dpuYU?t...
We're already seeing the system buckle and fail. Greece crashed, Germany, France, Sweden, etc are cracking under the migrant issue to say nothing for a turning economy. Germany for example depends very very very heavily on exports... and the export economy is facing a cyclical downturn.
And amongst all this... you want to dramatically expand government expenses and raise taxes?
This like suggesting Europe stick a shotgun in its mouth and pull the trigger with its toe.
Do whatever makes you happy. Just don't ask me to clean the brain matter off the ceiling.
As to scientists studying things... yes and they also disagree about stuff. So... that's a wash. The issue is more controversial among scientists than you're admitting. This is especially true of the details. That X or Y does something is generally not in contention. However, the extent, cause, and solutions are highly variable. And suggesting that there is a consensus when everyone knows the 97% study was a farce is not helpful to this discussion.
As to you not considering something until scientists take it seriously... I think I gave you a study that literally said what I just said. So you are now either taking it seriously or you are contradicting yourself. Choose.
As to the various IPCC working groups... remove the second and third working groups and we can talk about science alone. Keep them there and we're going to maintain an element of politics. I mean... listen to these idiots:
""
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worldâ(TM)s resources will be negotiated.
â" Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Working Group III Chairman
""
-The New Zurich Times
http://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik...
Frankly, I'd like to just not talk about the UN because if we do then it is just going to be a lot of political crap because I have a basically endless list of reasons for not feeling comfortable with them as a source. We can talk about any other source... but if you really want to do the whole IPCC thing then I'm going to hammer the politics until you stop it.
... A place in the ocean is too acidic... so they moved the operation to another place in the ocean... that is less acidic... because the whole ocean is becoming too acidic?
Do you see the problem here?
No doubt some portions of the ocean become less alkaline. I already addressed that. However, since the issues are localized... the issue is localized.
As to whether I'm worried about density etc... I'm not worried. Other people are trying to say I should be... but I'm not.
As to why something is a greenhouse gas... more an issue of not seeing why it matters. The heat will be conducted regardless. I mean sure... lets say you absorb short wave radiation... great. But that doesn't mean you retain the heat which is the actual issue in the lower atmosphere. Molecules are going to bump into other molecules. I could grant that heat might take longer to transition out of the lower atmosphere but the issue here is whether temperatures are built up over long periods of time... not... short periods of time. And over the long term the heat should work its way up. And the greater the differential the more vigerous will be the transfer of energy. I mean... think of a tea kettle. The heat isn't going to stay in the lower atmosphere. And its worse than that because obviously the hotter the lower atmosphere gets the more the gas will expand assuming the heat is trapped for some magical reason... which would mean the lower atmosphere would expand... because its a gas... and gases expand when they're heated unless kept under pressure... in which case the pressure just goes up... but in this case it would just inflate like a balloon. But that's assuming the heat would be trapped... which I don't buy.
Seriously, how do you trap the heat in the lower atmosphere in the first place? saying "oh it absorbs short wave radiation" doesn't some how make CO2 a perfect insulator or something. The heat won't be trapped. I mean again... how?
Lets say I put on a space suit... and I surround that space suit with a bubble of CO2... and then I walk around in some place horribly cold... pick a pole... Am I some how not going to freeze to death? Obviously absent some sort of heating element... I will freeze fucking solid given time. I grant that the CO2 might resist the transfer but I don't see how that is relevant over long periods of time. ... Skipping over the various insults you use to disguise no meaningful responses and logging all such points as sustained until addressed more substantively.
I will note you seem to be claiming some familiarity with me and presuming by that extraction to make judgements of me. While at the same time I'll note that you're logging in under an AC account and thus no one knows anything about you. If you've talked to me before, then I can only assume you've already been chided for having a double standard where you presume to question my history while of course hiding your own.
I think I'll just respond that since you're a confessed child molester, you probably don't have a lot of room to be judgmental there. Absent you actually logging in... I'll just assume the worst. Seems fair.
As to your sad attempt to defend your claim that you have telepathic powers... I can only roll my eyes. You can't read people's minds over the internet... and you can't fly... and you don't have laser vision. Doubt me? Jump off the highest building you can find and tell me how that works out for you. Absent that, stop claiming to have super powers... unless you're Tom Cruse and apparently Scientology does give super powers. In which case... it must be awesome to be you.
Well sure... potency is an issue. But you can't quantify that and whether or not CO2 is even doing anything besides what it would do if it were any gas in the atmosphere in relation to temperature is controversial.
The numbers cited for what it does even among true believers are all over the place.
As to laypeople, anyone can claim superiority and then drop the mic claiming to have won. If that's what you want to do... go for it. The requirements to make that argument are roughly zero... aka someone that knew nothing could make the same argument. For the sake of argument... if you're right and I'm such a fool... grasp that I could make the same argument you just made there... I could claim "oh you just don't understand" and then claim victory and walk. So forgive me if I don't find that argument to be especially compelling.
If you'd like to chime in, your opinion would be more than welcome. However, know that if you are attempting to support someone rhetorically or politically... your support will be taken as rhetorical or political support... not scientific support.
There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the issue of what is and is not science. Science is not a logical fallacy. Science is not a circle jerk of "well more people agree with me so the world must be flat".
Science isn't about voting or opinions. Its about figuring out how the universe works. Its about humbling ourselves before the cosmos itself and patiently attempting to grasp its nature. Who you are or who I am is immaterial. The whole pathetic layperson argument was a sad attempt to legitimize an ad hominem. And you're right... to fallacies, pathos, and various appeals to popularity... I don't listen to it... in a scientific argument... because those points are irrelevant in this context.
Why are they not green house gases? You don't think if we had a dense oxygen atmosphere that we would retain that heat?
Why is something a green house gas and something not? From what I'm seeing here they should be roughly analogous.
So you're worried about naturally produced green house gases... hmmm... I guess we're going to have to send some emissions credits to the swamps and volcanoes then... also oceans because water vapor has to be a green house gas.
As to laypeople, the problem is that when you talk down like that you use terms that while perhaps easier to understand are not correct. What is more, most laypeople don't grasp things because they don't care... I mean... its a matter of time spent trying to understand which is typically low with things that people don't care about. When you ask for trillions of dollars people care... lay or not. And using that term in that context only creates confusion, makes the people using the term sound like con artists, and generally isn't helpful. The more correct and scientifically defensible position is what should be used... to the exclusion of whatever some PR wonk might think is a better product to sell. Keep in mind, people trust scientists... they do not trust sales people, marketing people, public relations people, or politicians. So... don't let them form the argument if you want it to be above reproach.
As to my persecution complex... its not a complex if its earned. And it is. :)
As to heat trapping, the greater the energy differential between two things in contact with each other the greater the flow of energy between them shall become. There are resistances but given that gases expand when heated... I question whether this will work exactly the way they think it will. I can think of a lot of buffering and countering elements that are not addressed in these discussions.
As to energy being reflected back towards the earth... it is still absorbed by the atmosphere and radiated up through the atmosphere one way or another. You can slow that energy transfer but you can't stop it. Now the notion here is that you're slowing it enough that you're retaining and building up heat. I question that because as the energy differential increases the rate of transmission has to increase... and then you have all sorts of things going on with gases that are heated. Air can insulate ... but... as any man standing next to a fire will say... he's getting plenty warm standing where he is... I grant you can have certain chemicals that will slow the transmission of energy... I just question whether that is relevant over long spans of time.
As to doctorates... don't drop that and then get upset when I accuse you of browbeating. You're earning it.
As to quibbling over numbers... sure... I mean, I would also agree there would be a point where if we brought enough rocks back from space that it would increase the earth's gravity to such an extent that it would become unpleasant for our species or have other negative effects. My quibble as you put it is that this is not a reasonable thing to worry about at this juncture as the threshold in the "numbers" is so far beyond what is currently happening as to make the question a nonsense.
As to temper tantrums... pot kettle black... stones and glass houses. Your clearly fishing for a SOCIAL excuse to walk away from this discussion... looking for some social slight that gives you the ability to feign offense and walk away. If you want to abandon your position and leave the discussion... you just had to say that. No need to sink to these pretenses, friend.
As to me being too "emotional"... You have no idea what my emotions are... unless you're now pretending to have magical powers on top of knowledge of a subject that so far you've done no more than quote verbatim from the most basic texts without any particular depth.
Whatever... as you will. *yawn*
Then you agree the term "green house gas" is redundant because any gas will function that way in sufficient quantity. Which is to say vastly beyond whatever we've done thus far or shall do by burning fossil fuels.
As to your presumption to browbeat by throwing around the term "layperson" as if no one can grasp the concepts. Presume what you will about the general public. However, as you address me, I would prefer if you didn't try the lazy argument of "Oh I would explain it but you're too stupid to understand so I'll just pretend i know what I'm talking about" argument. If you've got something, then lets hear it. Otherwise, for all anyone knows you're ironically a member of the very ignorant masses you presume to be above.
As to CO2 being relevant because of human industry... the change in the atmosphere of it would have to be a great deal greater than it is for us to care unless there were something special about it. As is... snooze.
Well, acidification isn't an issue because of the vastly more powerful pH equilibrium which is maintained by the various minerals the oceans rest upon. Most issues of decreased alkalinity can be more easily explained by upwellings of cold water which carry a higher concentration of CO2. This is why the seas outgas at the equator and intake as they go to the poles.
As to thousands of years, the seas shouldn't have a problem with it. As to the land, as you say... good for plants.
The only negative consequence you're likely to even try to cite here is ocean acidification which is actually the red herring you keep looking for. The oceans are alkaline and there is no way that you're going to make them acidic. Less alkaline? Maybe... but the variation from what I can see is something like between 8.2 and 7.5 globally and that is from what anyone can tell entirely determined either by local run off and pollution of rivers... or upwellings of cold water in the region. Absent either of those... I'd like to see the data. And if we really want to get serious about the acidification discussion, I'm going to cite the pH records that predate the 90s. You'll see the sine wave.
Also, because its funny:
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
As to your opinion basically being a political question of "I'll believe this when X people believe it"... fine... that's not a scientific position. Its a political position.
As to air pressure... let me help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At around 1 bar you can see the temp is around 345K. Earth's norm at 1 atmosphere is about 290K. Relative distance from the sun is 108.2 (10^6 km) versus 149.6(10^6 km). Solar irradiance (W/m2) 2613.9 for earth and 1367.6 for venus with a ratio of 1.911 between the two. I'm grabbing this stuff from wikipedia and NASA.
You can see some of the equations to play with this here:
http://www.springerplus.com/co...
And beyond that, it was common knowledge in the 1960s that temperature was basically distance from the sun + atmospheric density. its only recently that that has been challenged... and the basis for the challenge is specious.
And since you have already played the political card of "but but but I have a consensus"... You actually don't. The 97% thing was a fraud and I rather suspect you know it.
Do you honestly think I can't get a gaggle of esteemed scientists to gainsay your position? Because it isn't hard. And if do note that it has not gone unnoticed that many of your "supporters" in these institutions aren't even scientists. This is especially true within the UN where many of the authors were not scientists. But it is seen elsewhere as well.
You can't brow beat me. I am not insecure. I am not uneducated. I am not stupid. Bravado and bluster will work with some... not I.
Green house effect implies that there is something special about CO2 when there isn't. There is nothing unique about CO2 that causes it to be more relevant in the atmosphere. And given that the vast majority of its spectrum is shared with water vapor it is if anything less relevant than most chemicals in the atmosphere.
Ocean acidification as previously noted requires the comparatively marginal input of carbonic acid to overwhelm the minerals in contact and in solution with the oceans to be overwhelmed. This is frankly impossible if the source of our emissions continues to be fossil fuels.
As to effects on living things, we're no where near that threshold and will not cross it. So that isn't relevant either.
As to air pressure, you need a gas to compress to have an atmosphere. While it is obvious that larger gravitational bodies tend to have atmopheres if only because they do not permit gases to escape... the point is that if you match air pressures and then compensate for distance from the sun... each atmosphere in our solar system is predictable indifferent to its chemical composition. You don't need to know Jupiter's, Mar's, Venus's, or the Earth's chemical composition to know the temperature of its atmosphere. All you need to know is the distance from the sun and the air pressure. Do you want me to show you graphs and the mathematics? See, if CO2 were so relevant then Venus would be hotter than the earth AFTER doing those calculations. But it isn't. Match air pressure and then compensate for the difference in solar radiation.
As to things being a red herring because numbers don't matter... Numbers matter. If the numbers don't matter then lets just stick bones in our noses and shake sticks at each other. Numbers matter. You say you know we have a problem "now"... but we don't. Right now we're fine. That is self evident. What you're claiming rather is that we'll have a problem in the future. Very well... lets say that is the case for the sake of argument. if things actually start to show some kind of problem... which is not what we have now... then we know how long it lasts in the atmosphere indifferent to how much is there... and we thus know that the time horizon for correcting an error is at most 33 years. Which on a geological time scale is not even an eye blink. The "you must do something now before we're all dooooomed!" talk is silly alarmist nonsense.
As to the limestone already reacting at its maximum rate... That's not how an acid base reaction works. If I expose limestone to an extremely acidic liquid it will react faster than if I expose it to a less acidic liquid. What is more there are minerals that are largely inert at given pH but will react at other pH reacting with either bases or acids. The oceans CANNOT become acidic. it isn't possible. Its like a gnat colliding with a freight train and expecting the freight train to be effected. One of the elements not examined with this nonsense is water temperature and currents. Cold water can contain more CO2 than warm water. A flow of cold water welling up in a warm area will cause CO2 outgasing from the ocean and will cause a LOCAL drop in pH. However for that to happen there has to be a FLOW and the net pH of the ocean is not especially relevant to the issue because it can go up or down and the same effect can be seen at that given locality.
As to biospheres not evolving, then oxygen would not be as prevalent in our atmosphere. It is because of an evolutionary adaptation which altered our atmosphere. What is more bacteria, algae, fungi, and animal life have gone through dramatic economical shifts throughout the history of this world. At no point am I saying the planet is AWARE of anything. Rather, I am saying life on this world... especially simple life has adapted to survive on this world and has experienced far more radical climates than anything our species has experienced. These life forms have adapted... you don't want to call that "learning" okay. But claiming that I am anthropomorphizing the biosphere is frankly ju
Care to elaborate on any of that or did you want to vaguely reference everything and expect me to go through all of that in detail?
As to the problems, list them.
As to it being stupid to discuss this... you mean CO2 at all or you just don't like me pointing out problems with your premise that you can't respond to by reading off a card. Because I'm doing that on purpose because it filters out the parrots.
As to red herrings, its not a red herring if we're talking about how long something is going to stay in the atmosphere. And as to it not being safe to sink it... I assume you're talking about ocean acidification which is a silly thing to worry about when you consider the chemistry of the oceans is balanced by the chemistry of the ocean floor and the mineral run off from rivers. Something which anyone knows that has maintained a large aquarium is that you have to be very careful about what sorts of rocks you put in the water. A lot of rocks you just pick off the ground will not be stable at your desired pH. There are tests you can do with the rocks to make sure its safe to use it, etc. But the point is that the ocean floor is covered with minerals like "LIMESTONE" which is inherently basic and the more acid you put into the water the more these rocks are going to react. They react all the time. Trying to acidify the ocean is basically betting that you're creating more carbonic acid in the oceans than the oceans can cancel with the mineral deposits that interact with the oceans. Now... THAT is stupid. That's like saying an insect flying along at 30mph is going to damage a semi truck. Don't be silly. Here you might say "but we've seen recently the oceans have grown more acidic!" Sure. And that has happened in patterns since always. We have ocean pH records that go back at least 100 years and you can see sort of sine wave pattern in the pH values. It goes up and then goes down. There is no trend up.
As to the biosphere not knowing... well... it has evolved to deal with it. If you want to argue that an evolved adaptation is not learned or known that is fine... however, it is an effect that resembles knowledge and learning closely enough to make it a suitable analogy. That said, if you are "triggered" by things that are not literally literal... we can avoid turns of phrase and talk like robots. Not my preference but... whatevhs.
As to wishes and unicorns... in regards to what? As I said, the residency is 33 years. So... given my premise... and given the residency period... I'm not seeing how wishes are required.
So you're saying the problem with CO2 is that it increases atmospheric density?... Do you have any stats on changes in atmospheric air pressure over time?
What is more... The comparative mass of the CO2 to the existing atmosphere would require us to release a great deal more CO2 into the air than we really could to get any kind of significant difference.
And that is discounting that CO2 has a "residence" in the atmosphere of about 33 years.
People keep trying to pretend that CO2 is some kind of toxic chemical that our biosphere doesn't know how to deal with... its comical.
Is CO2 going up? Sure. Emissions are going up. If emissions flatline, then CO2 will likely hold. If human emissions of CO2 stop then CO2 levels will return to natural equilibrium in about 33 years.
We are on the cusp of a lot of technological changes. Flipping our fucking wigs about this is not productive.
So, I need the resources of a nation state or I'm not entitled to a contrary voice?
Riddle me this, guru... why do you have a right to an opinion? Did you launch any sats recently? No?... kay... you're in the same boat I'm in then.
That's the problem with arguments that have no counter... they can get reversed on you and you're no better at surviving them than anyone else.
And that's assuming I find the argument valid... but here's the thing... if I did find your argument valid, then it would mean you wouldn't have a right to an opinion either... and if I don't... then the whole argument is meaningless.
So it is heads you lose and tails I don't care. Just saying.
http://climatecenter.fsu.edu/d...
yeah... one site... and you know there are a fucking million of them that are independently arriving at the same conclusion because if you actually look at the old data and compare it to the new data... you see "this".
If you'd like we can talk about the other planets in our solar system and how it can be shown rather easily that air pressure and distance from the sun are actually the overwhelming drivers of atmospheric temperature and that chemical composition is not especially relevant. I mean... its really easy. Look at any planet in the solar system. and match it with another solar system at equal air pressure. That is... look at the temp data at 1 atmosphere say on Venus and compare to Earth at 1 atmosphere... What you'll find is that Venus while hot is not actually that much hotter than earth. Factor for distance from the sun and the two harmonize. You can do the same thing for Jupiter or Uranius... and if you match at fractions of an atmosphere you can match Mars to earth etc.
Here you'll again tell me "but we did experiments where if you filled a chamber with CO2 it would absorb more heat than if it didn't have CO2"... Great. And did those tests factor for water vapor being a common denominator in both situations? From what I've seen they didn't.
I mean if you want to talk painted window, we can compare the chemical spectrums of CO2 with every other gas in the Earth's atmosphere and subtract from CO2 anything that is already being occluded. What is left as I'm sure you know is a tiny sliver of CO2's full spectrum and given that CO2 is itself not an especially prevalent gas you're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.
It doesn't make sense. And that's why this is an issue that despite all the arrogance and "the science is settled" stupidity... you are losing the argument.
I know, its all the evil oil companies that lie about it... never mind that you have the UN behind you, the US government behind you, and the EU behind you... but you still will probably claim to be the underdogs here. Negative.
The data in the past gets adjusted down... and the data set gets tweaked... again and again and again.
Part of the problem is that all the data is ultimately controlled by the NOAA... I mean all of it. People make much of there being multiple datasets but all of them ultimately refer back to the NOAA. Which means there is only one data set. One. It has never been audited by a third party.
all of this because idiots want to play angry birds on the corporate network.
BYOD needs to be killed with fire
Can =/= Will.
You are unworthy of my respect as evidenced by your pathetic arguments and I feel not only justified but actually obligated to treat you with as much disrespect as is possible over a text box.
What you don't seem to grasp is that your position is so asinine that it has revealed that you are unworthy of this discussion and are polluting the community with what can only be described as rampant stupidity.
I have no power to ban you or remove you from this place but I can at the very least show you what I feel is appropriate contempt for your stupidity.
Good day, sir.
harsh language =/= emotional reaction.
What is more the supposition here is that you are scoring points by showing yourself to be in emotional control while I am out of control. Not only is the premise of your argument inherently fallacious but the fundamental assumption upon which it is based is also in error. :)
As to the rest... I'm not going back and forth with AC twits. Waste of my time.