If the US really is in a cooperative mood, how about not backing out of the ISS program in 2016 or 2020? It hasn't even been completed yet and they already planning how to deorbit it.
Yes, the mechanism works as you described, which is why I didn't say it will absorb all CO2. But the excess amount remaining in the atmosphere will be very small, as the CO2 dissolved in the ocean, as you noted, is more than fifty times more than the amount in the atmosphere. After an equilibrum, the remaining excess CO2 won't have any measureable effects.
Exactly, I have argued something similar a few days ago. Basically, people are rude on the internet not because of anonymity, but because you can't punch them in the face.
First of all, this graph only shows the derivative of temperature, not temperature itself. Alsso, you assume that greenhouse effect is the only thing that raises temperatures after an ice age, while the biggest cause is the increase of albedo when the ice melts.
VR has been there for quite a while, and the reason it is not widespread isn't lack of imagination but its prohibitive costs. And since Google Glass still costs an arm and a leg, it won't start any revolution.
I live in a suburb where most corners and intersections are obstructed by high hedges, trees or parking cars. You literally can't see if another vehicle is coming until you are right in front of it. While I know this technology won't give 100% safety, widespread use of it could reduce the risks significantly.
For the driver, maybe. But assuming you are not an asshole who doesn't care about hitting people, there is a much bigger chance of someone getting killed in a human-car collision than it is in a human-deer one.
If it takes such a long time, then the study's find that CO2 and temperature rise correlates doesn't prove much, as there should be a delay between the two. Also, industrialism is not a new thing, and has in fact been there for more than a century. But if we assume that it does take multiple centuries for the greenhouse effect to reach full potential, then another slow effect comes into play, namely absorption of CO2 in the oceans. The Earth's oceans can hold much more CO2 than the atmosphere, which means that given time (estimated as 2-300 years) it can absorb most of the excess CO2.
In my first post I assumed that the paper was correct, but now after reading the article I'm much more sceptical. They have measured the warming during the past 250 years, that is, their reference point was right in the middle of the Little Ice Age! This may not discredit everything they claim but it sure raises some serious doubts about the professionalism of the researchers involved.
That global temperature have risen during the past 100-150 years is a fact, and that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly responsible for it was also likely. The real question is the rate of it. A 0.1C warming is harmles, a 10C warming is apocalyptic. In the past 150 years we have burned about 10% of the fossil fuels in the ground, which amounts to about 50% of the reserves we can actually extract. This resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 concentration and about 1C of warming. So if we burn the second half, it won't even rise the temperature with another degree. On the other hand, if technological advances will allow us to exploit more than that, it would result in a bigger warming, which could melt the permafrost releasing all the methane stored there in the athmosphere resulting in an unstoppable warming. Now these numbers are horribly imprecise, and to be able to plan ahead climate research should focus on getting much more accurate data.
Your "personal data" is only private until you broadcast it to the street. This is like putting up a billboard with your MAC address on it and then suing someone for looking at it.
is to hire people whom you can trust to behave like adults. Seems like you have no trust in your team if you need to resort to petty punishments like these, which is a bigger problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And why doesn't Wikipedia count as a social media?
Which is why their efficacy was tested before approval.
No, we should duel each other to death upon every insult like in the good ol' civilised days.
He retweeted another public tweet. Even if he did, it's not harassment until it continues after an explicit demand from the other party to stop.
If the US really is in a cooperative mood, how about not backing out of the ISS program in 2016 or 2020? It hasn't even been completed yet and they already planning how to deorbit it.
It's as loud as Iwant because I set the volume. The only painful loss is dynamic range.
Valve has opened up all of their games to the modders, accusing them of not being free is ignorant.
Yes, the mechanism works as you described, which is why I didn't say it will absorb all CO2. But the excess amount remaining in the atmosphere will be very small, as the CO2 dissolved in the ocean, as you noted, is more than fifty times more than the amount in the atmosphere. After an equilibrum, the remaining excess CO2 won't have any measureable effects.
But it's very easy to register a warming when compared to a cool period.
The real need is a legal system that doesn't require years of study to understand.
Perhaps, but mathematics is a necessity in anything you do. Physics, history etc you may do without, but not without the ability of rational thinking.
Exactly, I have argued something similar a few days ago. Basically, people are rude on the internet not because of anonymity, but because you can't punch them in the face.
First of all, this graph only shows the derivative of temperature, not temperature itself. Alsso, you assume that greenhouse effect is the only thing that raises temperatures after an ice age, while the biggest cause is the increase of albedo when the ice melts.
Does the article have some more evidence than those two unrelated cases?
VR has been there for quite a while, and the reason it is not widespread isn't lack of imagination but its prohibitive costs. And since Google Glass still costs an arm and a leg, it won't start any revolution.
I live in a suburb where most corners and intersections are obstructed by high hedges, trees or parking cars. You literally can't see if another vehicle is coming until you are right in front of it. While I know this technology won't give 100% safety, widespread use of it could reduce the risks significantly.
For the driver, maybe. But assuming you are not an asshole who doesn't care about hitting people, there is a much bigger chance of someone getting killed in a human-car collision than it is in a human-deer one.
If it takes such a long time, then the study's find that CO2 and temperature rise correlates doesn't prove much, as there should be a delay between the two. Also, industrialism is not a new thing, and has in fact been there for more than a century. But if we assume that it does take multiple centuries for the greenhouse effect to reach full potential, then another slow effect comes into play, namely absorption of CO2 in the oceans. The Earth's oceans can hold much more CO2 than the atmosphere, which means that given time (estimated as 2-300 years) it can absorb most of the excess CO2.
In my first post I assumed that the paper was correct, but now after reading the article I'm much more sceptical. They have measured the warming during the past 250 years, that is, their reference point was right in the middle of the Little Ice Age! This may not discredit everything they claim but it sure raises some serious doubts about the professionalism of the researchers involved.
That global temperature have risen during the past 100-150 years is a fact, and that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly responsible for it was also likely. The real question is the rate of it. A 0.1C warming is harmles, a 10C warming is apocalyptic. In the past 150 years we have burned about 10% of the fossil fuels in the ground, which amounts to about 50% of the reserves we can actually extract. This resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 concentration and about 1C of warming. So if we burn the second half, it won't even rise the temperature with another degree. On the other hand, if technological advances will allow us to exploit more than that, it would result in a bigger warming, which could melt the permafrost releasing all the methane stored there in the athmosphere resulting in an unstoppable warming. Now these numbers are horribly imprecise, and to be able to plan ahead climate research should focus on getting much more accurate data.
Or at least don't flash your fancy devices in a bad neighbourhood.
Your "personal data" is only private until you broadcast it to the street. This is like putting up a billboard with your MAC address on it and then suing someone for looking at it.
This kind of suicidal defence using bodily fluids is not unheard of among certain termite species.
And the biggest mindgame is telling you that poker is about watching your opponents' faces instead of concentrating on your strategy.
is to hire people whom you can trust to behave like adults. Seems like you have no trust in your team if you need to resort to petty punishments like these, which is a bigger problem.