Could you not simply have a file on your own computer that looks up Google.com to be 74.125.45.100 or whatever other addresses correspond to this name?. Could this not be done to every place on the Internet you have bookmarked? The computer would 1st look in your file, and if it did not find an entry there, then it would have to go out onto the net and possibly come up with the wrong answer, because the US government or some other entity had put the wrong answer there. All the places I usually go to on the Internet are in my bookmarks. Why could the IP address not be there also? Would that not also speed up surfing, since my computer should be able to look up addresses much faster in a file, than on some distant server on the Internet.
As I understand it, people's computer do not use a domain name directly, but the domain name gets associated with an IP address, which then responds with the requested information. How is this similar and dissimilar from a telephone book, which associates people's names with a phone number. With computer storage being rather cheap these days, couldn't everybody's computer contain a substantial subset of Internet associations, which would only be updated at the user's consent or command? Messing with the DNS system, is like changing the telephone book from the phone company. If I have my own phonebook, then the people I called frequently can still be reached, unless the phone company also changes the phone numbers.
If someone has a given domain bookmarked, and that bookmark also contains the associated IP address, then would the antics of the US government be limited to those people that had never visited that particular domain before? Regular users with their own DNS file, would not be affected. How big would such a file have to be, for the average user? Am I getting something wrong here?
Governments hate and always have hated the loss of control over their people. A major means of control is control over communication between the masses of people. When the printing press was invented, governments immediately instituted controls. That was not too hard, because printing presses were and still are expensive, as are broadcast stations. Controlling those media outlets is relatively easy because there are so few in comparison to the people on the Internet. Now anyone with a computer and a reasonable Internet connection can make their ideas available to anyone else with an Internet connected gadget. All governments without exception hate this because it lessens their control over their populations.
defendant, “Your Honor, I don't know the encryption key, but I had it written down on a sticky note under my keyboard” prosecutor, “we never found such a note under any keyboard” defendant, “I know it was there, the police must have lost it” prosecutor, “our detectives never found such a note under any keyboard” defendant, “I know it was there. It's not my fault that you lost it through carelessness. Sorry, I can't help you if you can't find that note” Judge to defendant, “you go to jail for contempt until hand over the decryption key” 20 years later, the prosecution still hasn't found the note. That is how our “justice system” works today.
This has really nothing to do with the right or the left. All governments, without a single exception fear loss of control over those governed more than anything else. In order to control people, governments have traditionally passed various laws concerning weapons and communications.
When the printing press was invented, some governments immediately passed laws to assert their control over this new communications medium. Because printing presses and later broadcasting stations are really expensive, governments only had to exert their controls over the relatively few owners of these technologies.
With the Internet all this changed dramatically. Now anyone who can afford to buy a computer and subscribe to an Internet connection, is able to bring their ideas to the entire world. Some of those ideas have been or will be dangerous to those who wish to be or remain in control. Therefore, governments will attempt to and probably eventually succeed in stifling the free communication between ordinary people. This move to have the UN take over the Internet, is just another attempt at total control. The effort of the US to do this with SOPA and PIPA failed for now, but this is only a temporary setback for those who want to stifle free communications between ordinary people.
Copyrights and ACTA are readily available tools for all governmental and/or corporate control freaks to use, whether on the left or the right. The US government has become particularly adept at using copyright as a weapon on behalf of large media corporations to shut down websites not only located in the US, but it seems almost anywhere else on the globe.
"who's gonna trust a cloud storage site that could get nuked off the face of the internet..."
Any business that has their mission-critical data in the "cloud" can be shut down by the loss of such data. Having the US or any other government do this at their whim is just another business hazard in addition to the normal ones like fire, theft, natural disaster etc. Keeping your critical data in the "cloud" allows the government at the request of a competitor to put you out of business with only an e-mail or phone call to your service provider without such pesky details as getting a court order. That's much easier, safer and costs far less than sending a SWAT team and one or more helicopters to your place of business and physically drag you and your servers away.
"I'd like to see the tech community make an effort to reverse-engineer politician's thinking process."
There is no need to reverse engineer any politician, because ALL of them have the overriding goal which is to get or remain in office. In so-called democratic countries this means getting enough money together to market themselves to the electorate. In dictatorial countries, such as Syria, it involves police and military force. All governments on earth, without a single exception want to have control over those governed. There is nothing any government fears more than losing control over its subjects (citizens?).
Traditionally over the centuries this control has in large measure involved controlling the information that those being controlled were allowed to know. When the printing press was invented, many of those in power, such as the Catholic Church at that time, opposed the proliferation of these new means of spreading information and knowledge. Human nature never changes. The Internet and related computer technologies have made the spread of information available to almost everybody, much to the chagrin of the power elite in whatever country they may happen to be. Expect those who are now in power to fight tooth and nail everywhere, not just in the United States, to try desperately to curtail the free flow of information to and among those they wish to control. The media companies in Hollywood and elsewhere are part of the governing elite using copyright laws as an excuse to curtail the free movement of information.
Indeed it appears that a single insignificant government bureaucrat can now apparently without a court order decide whether a business lives or dies. If there is no law that requires a court order before registrars like Go Daddy (who initially endorsed SOPA) can shut down a website on the demand of a government official, then I would recommend a mass exodus of registrations from them or any such registrar agrees to shut down any website merely on the demand of a government bureaucrat. Keeping your own data in a private secure place, may cost a little more, but if the government or anybody else wants it, they have to physically come and get it. That is definitely much harder. They can't just shut your business down with a phone call to some willingly compliant registrar who will pull the plug on your business just for the asking. Cloud computing may be cheaper and very convenient, but it means that a third-party can put a sudden end to your business without due process.
Whether Adam knew what death was or not is irrelevant. The fact is that he disbelieved God, in effect calling God a liar. He proved this disbelief by doing what God had told him not to do. Not understanding the consequences of disobedience doesn't change the outcome. Most people don't like being called a liar, so the God who cannot lie would understandably be very offended. (Titus 1:2)
When I tell my 3-year-old grandson to not stick hairpins into a wall socket, he must believe me and obey, regardless of whether he understands the consequences of doing so.
Death is not the end of existence. Nothing ever goes out of existence, but only changes form and/or location. The biblical definition of death is only a "separation". The instant that Adam disbelieved God and proved this disbelief by disobedience, he died spiritually, that is he and all of us that descended from him are spiritually separated from God. The separation between his body and soul, physical death, happened 930 years later.
A very important principle in biblical interpretation, or as a matter of fact, for any ancient literature, is to pay attention to the context. The quoted verse is God's prelude to instructing Noah to build an ark. This was a huge project which took 120 years. In effect God was giving mankind another 120 years before he would send judgment. God never does anything without telling beforehand what he is going to do. (Genesis 18:17, Amos 3:7)
After the flood, human lifespans gradually decreased from Methusalah's 969 years to a nominal 70 years.(Psalm 90:10, Isaiah 23:15). The current world average lifespan is 67.5 years. In spite of all the advances in modern medicine, the average human lifespan still is about that amount of time which God had written down in his word thousands of years ago.
Why go so far afield to other countries when we have the same kind of thing right here in the good old USA? What about these legal and illegal immigrants working on pesticide laced industrial farms? How about the workers at megacorporation slaughterhouses and food processing plants? Are their working conditions really that much better than those at Foxconn in China? Is a Mexican working all day in the hot California sun for minimum wages and living in a migrant worker shack that much better off than a Chinese factory worker? Media like the New York Times are hypocritical to the nth degree. They should start their muckraking investigations right here at home, before they start singling out one particular extremely successful tech company for their hypocritical tirades.
Our 47 inch LCD TV is now nothing more than a big monitor connected to a Mac mini computer. The mini receives signals over Wi-Fi from a server that contains ripped DVDs and a few Blu-rays from the collection of our discs, which are safely stored in the garage. The sound output of the computer is connected to a normal stereo system which includes a subwoofer. In addition there is a gadget called Eye-TV connected to the computer via USB. This takes care of live broadcasts from the antenna. It also functions to record shows that come on at inconvenient times. An old VCR is also connected to this Eye-TV gadget to enable viewing some ancient tapes. iTunes and Netflix supply more content. iTunes also can play a 35GB music collection resident on the server. All of this except the VCR can be controlled with an app on an iPod Touch which enables it to perform the duties of a mouse and keyboard. Alternatively, a wireless mouse and keyboard can control the mini. My wife has no problems running this system since she often uses her iMac in the bedroom to watch movies or listen to music from the server. We basically have a homemade VERY smart TV that's extremely easy to use by anyone who knows how to use a computer.
In many if not most environments, such as a forest or even in most cities, 100 highly skilled men with hunting rifles would very likely eliminate 10 such better armed men.
"so that the poorest of us can pay even more for roads, schools, police, fire, and other basic amenities that are considered important to the function of a society."
Actually if the government only paid for those things that it takes to actually govern, such as those things that are outlined in the Constitution, as well as what you mention above, then all taxes could be cut by at least 80%. The rest of government expenditures all have to do with income redistribution. This is simply forcibly taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people. This is basically a socialistic, communistic idea that did not exist in the early times of this country. If all that our government had to do was to pay for the direct expenses of governing only, we could could tax the rich and the rest of us would pay nothing. As it is, there is a constant war between those from whom money is forcibly taken and those to whom it is given for no effort at all. This doesn't only include the poor welfare recipients but even more so the filthy rich, too big to fail corporate welfare, but also subsidies for inefficient farms and businesses. The Constitution gives the power to COIN money to the federal government, but it does not give this power to private entities and furthermore does not confer on anyone, the power to create money out of thin air.
" Much like how one can be compelled to open a safe."
The difference is that the right amount of C-4 put in the right places will open any safe. Tell the cops to put some C-4 under the hard drive, set it off, and then it would be decrypted without the password you can't remember.
It's not "gas", but "plasma" carrying electric currents. There is no known way, at least here on earth, to make a magnetic field, except by moving electric charges. In permanent magnets, moving charges are aligned orbiting electrons. Neutral gas can never in all eternity, no matter how dense, make a magnetic field. There are enormous electric currents in the galaxy that give rise to the magnetic fields.
If there were no evil, selfish people anywhere in the world, then all the information you have listed would be just fine to disseminate publicly. The problem is that if there is only one person that will use this information for their own selfish ends, then such information must remain private. Privacy is only needed because evil exists in this world.
So truth, including scientific truth depends on the majority opinion of scientists or other people? I have always thought that truth was independent on how many people believe it or don't. Silly me!
I have never read an answer either by some Slashdot poster or any other person. The question is: "where was all this carbon we are now releasing into the atmosphere before these fossil fuels existed?" It is a scientific fact, that increased CO2 promotes plant growth. If it was in the atmosphere, then what would be wrong with returning it there once again? Another question: "what is the water holding capacity of the atmosphere at higher temperatures?" There is evidence that the earth must have been much warmer at one time, in order to make all these fossil fuels which we are now burning. Fossils and fossil fuels only come from living things. Therefore at one time the earth must have had much more abundant life than it does today. It is not CO2, but all the other chemicals we are putting into the biosphere of the earth, that we should be reducing.
--- So water levels increase? It will be disastrous, but the majority will survive. ---
As the atmosphere warms up, it can hold a lot more water. Therefore the water levels may actually go down. Growing bananas in Siberia is not a bad thing.
--- H2O has a half-life of about three weeks in the atmosphere ---
That is true only under current temperature conditions. If the temperature were a uniform 85F - 90F on the entire planet, including the poles, what would the half life be under those conditions? This would still be well below the body temperatures of warm blooded animals.
Water vapor is lighter than oxygen or nitrogen at any given temperature. In order for water to precipitate out of the atmosphere, it needs to be cold enough. There also need to be microscopic particles in the atmosphere around which the water droplets can form. Eventually these droplets get big enough and heavy enough and then fall out of the atmosphere as rain or snow. Therefore, on a MUCH warmer Earth, the temperature at which water vapor can condense into rain would happen at a much higher altitude. At higher altitudes, the quantities of microscopic particles around which these droplets can condense, are much smaller. Whatever particles are there then fall to earth inside a raindrop. This has the effect of cleaning the upper atmosphere more and more of particles that can condense the water vapor. Eventually, the outer atmosphere would consist of pure, supersaturated water vapor that can no longer fall to earth because of the lack of condensing particles. The raindrops that did manage to form, would have to fall through a warm atmosphere, in which they would mostly evaporate before reaching the ground. (Massive volcanic eruptions or a global thermonuclear war might reverse this process for a while.)
Such a pure water vapor layer would multiply the greenhouse effect and increase the total atmospheric pressure because of the added weight of all that water vapor in the upper atmosphere. At some point an equilibrium would be established where the half-life was extremely long. Has anybody ever come up with any figures of what would happen if all the carbon in the known fossil fuel reserves were returned to the atmosphere where they once must've been in order for living things to sequester them in the ground?
--- After all, that's roughly how we ended up with the fossil fuels that we're burning in the first place.----
Supposedly, when all the fossil fuels we are now burning were formed, the earth was a comfortable warm place able to support lots of plants and animals, way more than today. There is plenty of evidence that the Arctic areas of earth were once nice and warm. Does that mean if we burn all the fossil fuels that are now buried in the earth, the earth will be a warm cozy place once more? If not, why not? What would be wrong if the average temperature all over the earth were 85 - 90F, even at the poles?
We would not need any more heaters, shovel snow, use an icebreaker to supply communities like Nome Alaska and wear only a minimum of clothes. How much water would the atmosphere hold, if all of it uniformly all over the earth were at 85F? What would be wrong with eliminating all that wasted land, deserts and arctic tundra, allowing people and animals to live there? If every bit of ice and snow on the entire earth melted, how much, if any at all would the ocean levels rise, since the atmosphere, being much warmer than today, would be able to hold enormous quantities of water. If the ocean levels did rise a little, we could move our cities inland over time, but all that extra habitable land would more than make up for a slightly higher ocean level.
Have any of these climate modeling scientists ever tried to figure out what would happen if the earth were say 85F? Is it an accident that the internal temperature of warm-blooded creatures is in the optimum range for biochemical reactions?
Slashdot Mirror
to fix something that isn't even broken. The government can always fix everything can't they? Stupid!
Could you not simply have a file on your own computer that looks up Google.com to be 74.125.45.100 or whatever other addresses correspond to this name?. Could this not be done to every place on the Internet you have bookmarked? The computer would 1st look in your file, and if it did not find an entry there, then it would have to go out onto the net and possibly come up with the wrong answer, because the US government or some other entity had put the wrong answer there. All the places I usually go to on the Internet are in my bookmarks. Why could the IP address not be there also? Would that not also speed up surfing, since my computer should be able to look up addresses much faster in a file, than on some distant server on the Internet.
As I understand it, people's computer do not use a domain name directly, but the domain name gets associated with an IP address, which then responds with the requested information. How is this similar and dissimilar from a telephone book, which associates people's names with a phone number. With computer storage being rather cheap these days, couldn't everybody's computer contain a substantial subset of Internet associations, which would only be updated at the user's consent or command? Messing with the DNS system, is like changing the telephone book from the phone company. If I have my own phonebook, then the people I called frequently can still be reached, unless the phone company also changes the phone numbers.
If someone has a given domain bookmarked, and that bookmark also contains the associated IP address, then would the antics of the US government be limited to those people that had never visited that particular domain before? Regular users with their own DNS file, would not be affected. How big would such a file have to be, for the average user? Am I getting something wrong here?
Governments hate and always have hated the loss of control over their people. A major means of control is control over communication between the masses of people. When the printing press was invented, governments immediately instituted controls. That was not too hard, because printing presses were and still are expensive, as are broadcast stations. Controlling those media outlets is relatively easy because there are so few in comparison to the people on the Internet. Now anyone with a computer and a reasonable Internet connection can make their ideas available to anyone else with an Internet connected gadget. All governments without exception hate this because it lessens their control over their populations.
defendant, “Your Honor, I don't know the encryption key, but I had it written down on a sticky note under my keyboard”
prosecutor, “we never found such a note under any keyboard”
defendant, “I know it was there, the police must have lost it”
prosecutor, “our detectives never found such a note under any keyboard”
defendant, “I know it was there. It's not my fault that you lost it through carelessness. Sorry, I can't help you if you can't find that note”
Judge to defendant, “you go to jail for contempt until hand over the decryption key”
20 years later, the prosecution still hasn't found the note.
That is how our “justice system” works today.
This has really nothing to do with the right or the left. All governments, without a single exception fear loss of control over those governed more than anything else. In order to control people, governments have traditionally passed various laws concerning weapons and communications.
When the printing press was invented, some governments immediately passed laws to assert their control over this new communications medium. Because printing presses and later broadcasting stations are really expensive, governments only had to exert their controls over the relatively few owners of these technologies.
With the Internet all this changed dramatically. Now anyone who can afford to buy a computer and subscribe to an Internet connection, is able to bring their ideas to the entire world. Some of those ideas have been or will be dangerous to those who wish to be or remain in control. Therefore, governments will attempt to and probably eventually succeed in stifling the free communication between ordinary people. This move to have the UN take over the Internet, is just another attempt at total control. The effort of the US to do this with SOPA and PIPA failed for now, but this is only a temporary setback for those who want to stifle free communications between ordinary people.
Copyrights and ACTA are readily available tools for all governmental and/or corporate control freaks to use, whether on the left or the right. The US government has become particularly adept at using copyright as a weapon on behalf of large media corporations to shut down websites not only located in the US, but it seems almost anywhere else on the globe.
"who's gonna trust a cloud storage site that could get nuked off the face of the internet..."
Any business that has their mission-critical data in the "cloud" can be shut down by the loss of such data. Having the US or any other government do this at their whim is just another business hazard in addition to the normal ones like fire, theft, natural disaster etc. Keeping your critical data in the "cloud" allows the government at the request of a competitor to put you out of business with only an e-mail or phone call to your service provider without such pesky details as getting a court order. That's much easier, safer and costs far less than sending a SWAT team and one or more helicopters to your place of business and physically drag you and your servers away.
"I'd like to see the tech community make an effort to reverse-engineer politician's thinking process."
There is no need to reverse engineer any politician, because ALL of them have the overriding goal which is to get or remain in office. In so-called democratic countries this means getting enough money together to market themselves to the electorate. In dictatorial countries, such as Syria, it involves police and military force. All governments on earth, without a single exception want to have control over those governed. There is nothing any government fears more than losing control over its subjects (citizens?).
Traditionally over the centuries this control has in large measure involved controlling the information that those being controlled were allowed to know. When the printing press was invented, many of those in power, such as the Catholic Church at that time, opposed the proliferation of these new means of spreading information and knowledge. Human nature never changes. The Internet and related computer technologies have made the spread of information available to almost everybody, much to the chagrin of the power elite in whatever country they may happen to be. Expect those who are now in power to fight tooth and nail everywhere, not just in the United States, to try desperately to curtail the free flow of information to and among those they wish to control. The media companies in Hollywood and elsewhere are part of the governing elite using copyright laws as an excuse to curtail the free movement of information.
Indeed it appears that a single insignificant government bureaucrat can now apparently without a court order decide whether a business lives or dies. If there is no law that requires a court order before registrars like Go Daddy (who initially endorsed SOPA) can shut down a website on the demand of a government official, then I would recommend a mass exodus of registrations from them or any such registrar agrees to shut down any website merely on the demand of a government bureaucrat. Keeping your own data in a private secure place, may cost a little more, but if the government or anybody else wants it, they have to physically come and get it. That is definitely much harder. They can't just shut your business down with a phone call to some willingly compliant registrar who will pull the plug on your business just for the asking. Cloud computing may be cheaper and very convenient, but it means that a third-party can put a sudden end to your business without due process.
Whether Adam knew what death was or not is irrelevant. The fact is that he disbelieved God, in effect calling God a liar. He proved this disbelief by doing what God had told him not to do. Not understanding the consequences of disobedience doesn't change the outcome. Most people don't like being called a liar, so the God who cannot lie would understandably be very offended. (Titus 1:2)
When I tell my 3-year-old grandson to not stick hairpins into a wall socket, he must believe me and obey, regardless of whether he understands the consequences of doing so.
Death is not the end of existence. Nothing ever goes out of existence, but only changes form and/or location. The biblical definition of death is only a "separation". The instant that Adam disbelieved God and proved this disbelief by disobedience, he died spiritually, that is he and all of us that descended from him are spiritually separated from God. The separation between his body and soul, physical death, happened 930 years later.
A very important principle in biblical interpretation, or as a matter of fact, for any ancient literature, is to pay attention to the context. The quoted verse is God's prelude to instructing Noah to build an ark. This was a huge project which took 120 years. In effect God was giving mankind another 120 years before he would send judgment. God never does anything without telling beforehand what he is going to do. (Genesis 18:17, Amos 3:7)
After the flood, human lifespans gradually decreased from Methusalah's 969 years to a nominal 70 years.(Psalm 90:10, Isaiah 23:15). The current world average lifespan is 67.5 years. In spite of all the advances in modern medicine, the average human lifespan still is about that amount of time which God had written down in his word thousands of years ago.
Why go so far afield to other countries when we have the same kind of thing right here in the good old USA? What about these legal and illegal immigrants working on pesticide laced industrial farms? How about the workers at megacorporation slaughterhouses and food processing plants? Are their working conditions really that much better than those at Foxconn in China? Is a Mexican working all day in the hot California sun for minimum wages and living in a migrant worker shack that much better off than a Chinese factory worker? Media like the New York Times are hypocritical to the nth degree. They should start their muckraking investigations right here at home, before they start singling out one particular extremely successful tech company for their hypocritical tirades.
Our 47 inch LCD TV is now nothing more than a big monitor connected to a Mac mini computer. The mini receives signals over Wi-Fi from a server that contains ripped DVDs and a few Blu-rays from the collection of our discs, which are safely stored in the garage. The sound output of the computer is connected to a normal stereo system which includes a subwoofer. In addition there is a gadget called Eye-TV connected to the computer via USB. This takes care of live broadcasts from the antenna. It also functions to record shows that come on at inconvenient times. An old VCR is also connected to this Eye-TV gadget to enable viewing some ancient tapes. iTunes and Netflix supply more content. iTunes also can play a 35GB music collection resident on the server. All of this except the VCR can be controlled with an app on an iPod Touch which enables it to perform the duties of a mouse and keyboard. Alternatively, a wireless mouse and keyboard can control the mini. My wife has no problems running this system since she often uses her iMac in the bedroom to watch movies or listen to music from the server. We basically have a homemade VERY smart TV that's extremely easy to use by anyone who knows how to use a computer.
In many if not most environments, such as a forest or even in most cities, 100 highly skilled men with hunting rifles would very likely eliminate 10 such better armed men.
"so that the poorest of us can pay even more for roads, schools, police, fire, and other basic amenities that are considered important to the function of a society."
Actually if the government only paid for those things that it takes to actually govern, such as those things that are outlined in the Constitution, as well as what you mention above, then all taxes could be cut by at least 80%. The rest of government expenditures all have to do with income redistribution. This is simply forcibly taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people. This is basically a socialistic, communistic idea that did not exist in the early times of this country. If all that our government had to do was to pay for the direct expenses of governing only, we could could tax the rich and the rest of us would pay nothing. As it is, there is a constant war between those from whom money is forcibly taken and those to whom it is given for no effort at all. This doesn't only include the poor welfare recipients but even more so the filthy rich, too big to fail corporate welfare, but also subsidies for inefficient farms and businesses. The Constitution gives the power to COIN money to the federal government, but it does not give this power to private entities and furthermore does not confer on anyone, the power to create money out of thin air.
" Much like how one can be compelled to open a safe."
The difference is that the right amount of C-4 put in the right places will open any safe. Tell the cops to put some C-4 under the hard drive, set it off, and then it would be decrypted without the password you can't remember.
It's not "gas", but "plasma" carrying electric currents. There is no known way, at least here on earth, to make a magnetic field, except by moving electric charges. In permanent magnets, moving charges are aligned orbiting electrons. Neutral gas can never in all eternity, no matter how dense, make a magnetic field. There are enormous electric currents in the galaxy that give rise to the magnetic fields.
If there were no evil, selfish people anywhere in the world, then all the information you have listed would be just fine to disseminate publicly. The problem is that if there is only one person that will use this information for their own selfish ends, then such information must remain private. Privacy is only needed because evil exists in this world.
So truth, including scientific truth depends on the majority opinion of scientists or other people? I have always thought that truth was independent on how many people believe it or don't. Silly me!
I have never read an answer either by some Slashdot poster or any other person. The question is: "where was all this carbon we are now releasing into the atmosphere before these fossil fuels existed?" It is a scientific fact, that increased CO2 promotes plant growth. If it was in the atmosphere, then what would be wrong with returning it there once again? Another question: "what is the water holding capacity of the atmosphere at higher temperatures?" There is evidence that the earth must have been much warmer at one time, in order to make all these fossil fuels which we are now burning. Fossils and fossil fuels only come from living things. Therefore at one time the earth must have had much more abundant life than it does today. It is not CO2, but all the other chemicals we are putting into the biosphere of the earth, that we should be reducing.
I have lots of zeroes in my bank account, all zeroes as a matter o fact.
--- So water levels increase? It will be disastrous, but the majority will survive. ---
As the atmosphere warms up, it can hold a lot more water. Therefore the water levels may actually go down. Growing bananas in Siberia is not a bad thing.
--- H2O has a half-life of about three weeks in the atmosphere ---
That is true only under current temperature conditions. If the temperature were a uniform 85F - 90F on the entire planet, including the poles, what would the half life be under those conditions? This would still be well below the body temperatures of warm blooded animals.
Water vapor is lighter than oxygen or nitrogen at any given temperature. In order for water to precipitate out of the atmosphere, it needs to be cold enough. There also need to be microscopic particles in the atmosphere around which the water droplets can form. Eventually these droplets get big enough and heavy enough and then fall out of the atmosphere as rain or snow. Therefore, on a MUCH warmer Earth, the temperature at which water vapor can condense into rain would happen at a much higher altitude. At higher altitudes, the quantities of microscopic particles around which these droplets can condense, are much smaller. Whatever particles are there then fall to earth inside a raindrop. This has the effect of cleaning the upper atmosphere more and more of particles that can condense the water vapor. Eventually, the outer atmosphere would consist of pure, supersaturated water vapor that can no longer fall to earth because of the lack of condensing particles. The raindrops that did manage to form, would have to fall through a warm atmosphere, in which they would mostly evaporate before reaching the ground. (Massive volcanic eruptions or a global thermonuclear war might reverse this process for a while.)
Such a pure water vapor layer would multiply the greenhouse effect and increase the total atmospheric pressure because of the added weight of all that water vapor in the upper atmosphere. At some point an equilibrium would be established where the half-life was extremely long. Has anybody ever come up with any figures of what would happen if all the carbon in the known fossil fuel reserves were returned to the atmosphere where they once must've been in order for living things to sequester them in the ground?
--- After all, that's roughly how we ended up with the fossil fuels that we're burning in the first place.----
Supposedly, when all the fossil fuels we are now burning were formed, the earth was a comfortable warm place able to support lots of plants and animals, way more than today. There is plenty of evidence that the Arctic areas of earth were once nice and warm. Does that mean if we burn all the fossil fuels that are now buried in the earth, the earth will be a warm cozy place once more? If not, why not? What would be wrong if the average temperature all over the earth were 85 - 90F, even at the poles?
We would not need any more heaters, shovel snow, use an icebreaker to supply communities like Nome Alaska and wear only a minimum of clothes. How much water would the atmosphere hold, if all of it uniformly all over the earth were at 85F? What would be wrong with eliminating all that wasted land, deserts and arctic tundra, allowing people and animals to live there? If every bit of ice and snow on the entire earth melted, how much, if any at all would the ocean levels rise, since the atmosphere, being much warmer than today, would be able to hold enormous quantities of water. If the ocean levels did rise a little, we could move our cities inland over time, but all that extra habitable land would more than make up for a slightly higher ocean level.
Have any of these climate modeling scientists ever tried to figure out what would happen if the earth were say 85F? Is it an accident that the internal temperature of warm-blooded creatures is in the optimum range for biochemical reactions?