also, copy and pasting something from a denialist website full of other such bad science, that you dont understand and arent even capable of understanding why it is wrong, does not make for a compelling argument.
Yes you are a crackpot. No, you dont have any clue what you are talking about.
To dismiss radiative heating and isntead hold that it is solely from phsyics and "gravity/pressure" is to say the sun does not warm the earth. IE that the energy from the sun striking the earth is either ignored by the earth or 100% re-radiated. both of these are impossible and violate thermodynamics.
It also completely ignores the numerous experiments showing the ability of various gases (or other materials reall) to absorb radiated energy. All matrials can absorb radiated energy. Some re-radiate better than others, some retain it better than others.
Air is a mixture of various elemental gases and compounds. Mostly nitrogen, then oxygen, and then others, including CO2. Each of these will absorb some amount of radiated energy (which, contrary to your statement, is basic physics). Changing the concentrations of these gases will result is different total performance of the mixture. Therefore changing the concentration of CO2 in the mixture affects how much energy is retained by the mixture. Because CO2 is one of those that retains it much better than others, a change in the concentration of CO2 has a disproportionate affect on the mxiture relative to its concentration.
In short: No. Th gravity/pressure/kinetic theory of gas is not sufficient to explain the warming seen. Nor even as a basic underlying basis for how the Earth's temperature is maintained. The suns effect cannot be ignored, and to do so is to postulate that if sun did not exist the Earth would still be a warm place to live which is patently false.
and the article itself didnt exactly do its best to point that out either. liek usual, they chose a hook to get eyballs, and that hook was to point out the agencies that dont have an immediately apparent connection (though some minor thought will lead to one)
From peoples reactions it is readily apparent they are not reading the article, and those that are are focusing on the handful of agencies that stick out ignoring that most of them are health related agencies.
I am quite sure you have no clue what you are talking about. The myths about HIPAA and teh ACA refuse to die because of ignorance like yours.
-For starters they do not and will not haev access to your private health information. -HIPAA largely doesnt aplpy to the ACA itself or mechanisms. -specifically HIPAA does not apply to the exchange website, which is the only part of the ACA that even uses your personal information, but notably does NOT use your private health information. -All ACA does is provide some incentive for helath providers to transition to electronic records. -Your health records and privacy laws covering them, including HIPAA, are not changed under the ACA
I say again: you are clueless about both HIPAA and the ACA.
left out a sentence: "to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock." should read: "to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock, and use health data to correlate with the rise of the resistant germs".
Before we cower in fear because ZOMG EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT ME....lets consider some things:
-there has been a push for a long time to move medical records to electronic format. we've been promised cost reductions as a result, as well has better/quicker care -most health records still paper instead of electronic. the move to electronic records has largely been a failure; one reason is the resulting cost reductions that have been promised have been slow to materialize, if theyve materialized at all. -those that are, are not in some large nationwide or accessible database -under federal law personal health information is private and cannot be released to outside parties without consent -under federal law any information that is released must be anonymized; ie, no SSN or names or other personally identifiable information -google facebook and other data miners probably already know more about your current health needs than these records would tell someone, and they already associate it with you (ie, their data isnt anonymous)
So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome. (chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*). and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).
No, its not readily apparent why the Dept of Ag might need health data. But health researchers absolutely. And they get anonymized health data already. But if we considered something like antibiotic resistance and hte theory that overapplication to livestock is a factor, I could see a scenario where health researchers partner with Dept of Ag to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock.
In fact the anonymous nature of this data is a big factor in the outrage over the House bills just a week or two ago that purported to "ban secret science" by requiring full disclouse over everything, and banning agencies from making decisions based on "secret science or data". This would have the efect of banning hte CDC or other health agencies from making decisions based on research using this anonymous data....data that is anonymous because of privacy laws. Effectively hamstringing the agencies compeltely.
All in all, teh cowering in fear and conspiracy reactions to this are just FUD.
he's deflecting. he is one of the local faces of that propoganda. khallow is a paid shill. and if he's not being paid...well then he's even dumber than i thought.
Seriously, if climate change really does affecting trillions of dollars in Big Oil revenue, then where's the vast tsunami of propaganda against climate change?
No actual science went into the creation of the NIPCC. No actual peer review by actual scientists went into the NIPCC.
What did go into it was substantial sums of money from fossil fuel companies. The NIPCC is not a scientific document, but a peice of political ideologically driven garbage meant to defend the fossil fuel industry. http://www.climatesciencewatch...
Using the NIPCC as your "proof" that scientists are wrong is like trying to convince a scientist to believe in God using the Bible. Its so dumb it's not even ignorant.
disproven so many times that the amount of ignorance required to believe it is no longer even funny. If solar cycles were driving it, and they are not, then we should be cooling right now. There is zero correleation between solar cycles and the warming trend.
By far the the biggest aberrations in the natural world are volcanoes. Volcanic activity varies year to year, but volcanoes emit 0.3 billion (or 300 million) tons of CO2 per year on average.
In comparison human activity releases in excess of 40 billion tons of CO2. Every year. And its only increasing.
Imagine a cube 18 miles on a side (more than 95000 feet tall). Made of CO2.
That's what 40 billion tons of CO2 looks like. That's what we put into the atmospehere every year.
While in terms of total atmosphere volume it may not seem like much. Imagine a swimming pool filled with pure water. And you add a drop of ink. And another drop. And another drop. And another drop. And another drop. At first you wont see anything. but eventually you start to get an effect. Eventually its not so crystal clear. Eventually the effect gets to be measurable.
That's the effect our CO2 (and methane, other greenhouse emissions) is having the planet and its temperature.
You do realize the buffalo snow was lake effect snow right? as in, it wasnt precipitation formed high in the atmosphere in clouds and falling to earth, but rather was water than came from the lake nearby?
again: you dont actually understand how carbon credits work. The people who make money of carben trading are the companies that trade the credits amongst themselves. its effectively a secondary stock market.
and again: your position is that cleaner air and a cleaner planet and healthier people is somehow a bad thing.
The fact it even is politicized is stupid. Science is science and facts are facts. They dont care about a person's politics. the only place where climate change or human responsiblity is even a "debate" is in the political realm.
In the real world and among climate* scientists it's not a debate. yes there is solid evidence. yes the models are accurate. yes we have sufficient data to show it. CO2 levels are at their high point in nearly a million years (humans have only been around for 2 MY). Sea levels have risen 8 inches just in the past 100 years. Arctic ice pack is at the lowest levels ever recorded, and is only about 25% of what it was 40 years ago (ie, its lost 75% of its mass). The fabled Northwest Passage is actually coming into existence (and shipping companies are excited for that). The amount of Antarctic ice mass lost every year is equivalent to a block of ice the size of Manhattan...and 3.5 miles thick. (No East the gains on East Antarctica do not offset the losses in West Antarctica; West is losing mass far faster; local climate is picking up some of the moisture, and that becomes precipitation in East, but its not where near the enough to offset the losses from West...its barely enough to offset the melting occuring in East Antarctica as it is). So much Antacrtic ice is melting that its changing the salinty of the local ocean water, decreasing it, which is causing a increase in the amount of SEA ice (due to the fresher water being able to freeze at a higher temperature). Note that this increase in sea ice is very small, much smaller than the lost land ice. The rate of increase of CO2 is over 333,000x faster than the historical rates before humans. We managed to accomplish in 200 years what it took nature millions of years to accomplish. The natural carbon cycle is largely carbon neutral. While nature may have some ability to absorb some of our excess carbon, we cause an imbalance because we dump over 40 billion tons of CO2 into the air -every year-, far more than nature can absorb. For comparison, volcanoes only emit 0.3 billion tons of CO2 (so not, its not volcanoes).
(no, we dont care what tv weathermen, or physicists, or brain surgeons have to say about it)
You say that like it means it might not. If I park a car at the top of a hill and let off the parking brake...I expect it to roll downhill. Do you think it wouldnt? If I toss a chunk of ice into a fire...I expect it to melt. Do you think it wouldnt?
on the contrary, it will work extremely well. many people can be convinced to shell out small amounts monthly rather than shelling out a large amount once. there is also a sizable population who has no (perceived) choice as they cannot afford the large up front cost, but can much more easily afford a small monthly hit, even though it means they end up paying more in the long run.
And because I know someone is giong to mention the McDonalds coffee lawsuit lady....
most people who refer to that case dont know the facts of that case: An elderly woman (79yo) suffered 3rd degree burns across large portions of her lower body because the combination of the extremely hot coffee and the type of clothes she was wearing held the hot liquid in close contact with his skin which made the burns worse than would otherwise have been expected.
She required extensive skin grafting as a result of said burns.
She wasn't out for money: having total costs incurred of ~18k$ she sought a settlement with McD's for 20k. McD's offered her only 800$ instead. That's when she brought suit.
Two mediations for arbitration were scheduled. McD's ignored both and did not attend even though it agreed to them each time.
Documents obtained from McDonalds were presented at trial showing over 700 other people burned by the coffee, and that McD's had settled with them. McD's own quality control manager stated the number of complaints was too low to justify a change...but then also stated that foods hotter than 130F constituted a burn hazard. The latter statement was then used by elderly woman's attorneys to point out that McD's themselves had jsut acknoledged in court their coffee was likely to cause injury if consumed immediately.
The jury quickly decided in her favor and then awarded her the 200k she was seeking, and an addition 2million in punitive damages against the company. This punitive amount was then reduced by the judge, resulting in total damamges awarded of ~640k. Both parties then appealed (McDs appealed first, and she appealed as well as a defensive tactic). They then settled out of court for less than the awarded amount.
you can sue anyone for anything in the country. you could probably sue a ham sandwich if you wanted. its been that from the start and not a recent trend.
all that matters is that you can prove your case in a court of law.
this is a good thing, as any arbitrary limits placed on a citizens right or ability to bring suit will invariably result in abuses by the potential plaintiffs who are now protected from suit. yes people bring stupid lawsuits. most of those lawsuits dont go anywhere when presented toa judge or a jury of peers. if they do, well tough kitty kibbles: that's our legal system is setup: if you can prove your case in a court of law, then so be it. this is an area where maximal freedom should be the norm.
No, what didn't help Eric Garner was being choked by a police officer who told not to choke people. Would you say the same thing if he was detained as a possible suspect in a burglarly, hit or run, or other crime?
The relevent facts, the only relevent facts are: -NYPD is not allowed to use chokehold compliance techniques due to numerous accidental deaths being caused by it in the past -The NYPD used a chokehold compliance technique on Eric Garner -Eric Garner then died as a result of said chokehold compliance technique.
The reason for detainment is completely irrelevent to the case. He was being detained and an improper compliance technique was used, which resulted in his death at the hands of the NYPD. Thus also resulting in the denial of his his rights as an American Citizen to due process under the the Constitution. That's all that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
also, copy and pasting something from a denialist website full of other such bad science, that you dont understand and arent even capable of understanding why it is wrong, does not make for a compelling argument.
Yes you are a crackpot.
No, you dont have any clue what you are talking about.
To dismiss radiative heating and isntead hold that it is solely from phsyics and "gravity/pressure" is to say the sun does not warm the earth. IE that the energy from the sun striking the earth is either ignored by the earth or 100% re-radiated. both of these are impossible and violate thermodynamics.
It also completely ignores the numerous experiments showing the ability of various gases (or other materials reall) to absorb radiated energy. All matrials can absorb radiated energy. Some re-radiate better than others, some retain it better than others.
Air is a mixture of various elemental gases and compounds.
Mostly nitrogen, then oxygen, and then others, including CO2.
Each of these will absorb some amount of radiated energy (which, contrary to your statement, is basic physics).
Changing the concentrations of these gases will result is different total performance of the mixture.
Therefore changing the concentration of CO2 in the mixture affects how much energy is retained by the mixture.
Because CO2 is one of those that retains it much better than others, a change in the concentration of CO2 has a disproportionate affect on the mxiture relative to its concentration.
In short: No. Th gravity/pressure/kinetic theory of gas is not sufficient to explain the warming seen.
Nor even as a basic underlying basis for how the Earth's temperature is maintained.
The suns effect cannot be ignored, and to do so is to postulate that if sun did not exist the Earth would still be a warm place to live which is patently false.
Methane is more effective at heat trapping than CO2.
Methane also breaks down into CO2.
Methane matters.
one must note that all science is observation.
and the article itself didnt exactly do its best to point that out either. liek usual, they chose a hook to get eyballs, and that hook was to point out the agencies that dont have an immediately apparent connection (though some minor thought will lead to one)
From peoples reactions it is readily apparent they are not reading the article, and those that are are focusing on the handful of agencies that stick out ignoring that most of them are health related agencies.
Just another typical day on /.
I am quite sure you have no clue what you are talking about.
The myths about HIPAA and teh ACA refuse to die because of ignorance like yours.
-For starters they do not and will not haev access to your private health information.
-HIPAA largely doesnt aplpy to the ACA itself or mechanisms.
-specifically HIPAA does not apply to the exchange website, which is the only part of the ACA that even uses your personal information, but notably does NOT use your private health information.
-All ACA does is provide some incentive for helath providers to transition to electronic records.
-Your health records and privacy laws covering them, including HIPAA, are not changed under the ACA
I say again: you are clueless about both HIPAA and the ACA.
left out a sentence:
"to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock."
should read:
"to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock, and use health data to correlate with the rise of the resistant germs".
Before we cower in fear because ZOMG EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT ME....lets consider some things:
-there has been a push for a long time to move medical records to electronic format. we've been promised cost reductions as a result, as well has better/quicker care
-most health records still paper instead of electronic. the move to electronic records has largely been a failure; one reason is the resulting cost reductions that have been promised have been slow to materialize, if theyve materialized at all.
-those that are, are not in some large nationwide or accessible database
-under federal law personal health information is private and cannot be released to outside parties without consent
-under federal law any information that is released must be anonymized; ie, no SSN or names or other personally identifiable information
-google facebook and other data miners probably already know more about your current health needs than these records would tell someone, and they already associate it with you (ie, their data isnt anonymous)
So we're not talking about the FBI or NSA using this to find out you have irritable bowel syndrome.
(chances are they already know from other sources like Facebook anyway...*tin foil hat*).
and they likely wouldnt care anyway (life is not a hollywood movie).
No, its not readily apparent why the Dept of Ag might need health data.
But health researchers absolutely. And they get anonymized health data already.
But if we considered something like antibiotic resistance and hte theory that overapplication to livestock is a factor, I could see a scenario where health researchers partner with Dept of Ag to study the effects of antibiotic usage on livestock.
In fact the anonymous nature of this data is a big factor in the outrage over the House bills just a week or two ago that purported to "ban secret science" by requiring full disclouse over everything, and banning agencies from making decisions based on "secret science or data". This would have the efect of banning hte CDC or other health agencies from making decisions based on research using this anonymous data....data that is anonymous because of privacy laws. Effectively hamstringing the agencies compeltely.
All in all, teh cowering in fear and conspiracy reactions to this are just FUD.
he's deflecting.
he is one of the local faces of that propoganda.
khallow is a paid shill.
and if he's not being paid...well then he's even dumber than i thought.
youre confusing the Permian extinction with the Cretaceous extinction.
The Permian extinction gave rise to the dinosaurs.
The Cretaceous extinction killed the dinosaurs.
You also seem to be confused about the mechanics of mechanics of both extinction events.
Seriously, if climate change really does affecting trillions of dollars in Big Oil revenue, then where's the vast tsunami of propaganda against climate change?
says one of the local fonts of said propoganda.
http://valuesaustralia.com/blo...
No actual science went into the creation of the NIPCC.
No actual peer review by actual scientists went into the NIPCC.
What did go into it was substantial sums of money from fossil fuel companies.
The NIPCC is not a scientific document, but a peice of political ideologically driven garbage meant to defend the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.climatesciencewatch...
Using the NIPCC as your "proof" that scientists are wrong is like trying to convince a scientist to believe in God using the Bible.
Its so dumb it's not even ignorant.
disproven so many times that the amount of ignorance required to believe it is no longer even funny.
If solar cycles were driving it, and they are not, then we should be cooling right now.
There is zero correleation between solar cycles and the warming trend.
Natural carbon processes are neutral.
By far the the biggest aberrations in the natural world are volcanoes.
Volcanic activity varies year to year, but volcanoes emit 0.3 billion (or 300 million) tons of CO2 per year on average.
In comparison human activity releases in excess of 40 billion tons of CO2. Every year.
And its only increasing.
Imagine a cube 18 miles on a side (more than 95000 feet tall). Made of CO2.
That's what 40 billion tons of CO2 looks like.
That's what we put into the atmospehere every year.
While in terms of total atmosphere volume it may not seem like much.
Imagine a swimming pool filled with pure water.
And you add a drop of ink.
And another drop.
And another drop.
And another drop.
And another drop.
At first you wont see anything.
but eventually you start to get an effect.
Eventually its not so crystal clear.
Eventually the effect gets to be measurable.
That's the effect our CO2 (and methane, other greenhouse emissions) is having the planet and its temperature.
You do realize the buffalo snow was lake effect snow right?
as in, it wasnt precipitation formed high in the atmosphere in clouds and falling to earth, but rather was water than came from the lake nearby?
this is why youre a troll and your original comment is nothing but a thinly disguised "im not a scientist...but i dont believe the scientists"
again: you dont actually understand how carbon credits work. The people who make money of carben trading are the companies that trade the credits amongst themselves. its effectively a secondary stock market.
and again: your position is that cleaner air and a cleaner planet and healthier people is somehow a bad thing.
The fact it even is politicized is stupid.
Science is science and facts are facts.
They dont care about a person's politics.
the only place where climate change or human responsiblity is even a "debate" is in the political realm.
In the real world and among climate* scientists it's not a debate.
yes there is solid evidence.
yes the models are accurate.
yes we have sufficient data to show it.
CO2 levels are at their high point in nearly a million years (humans have only been around for 2 MY).
Sea levels have risen 8 inches just in the past 100 years.
Arctic ice pack is at the lowest levels ever recorded, and is only about 25% of what it was 40 years ago (ie, its lost 75% of its mass). The fabled Northwest Passage is actually coming into existence (and shipping companies are excited for that).
The amount of Antarctic ice mass lost every year is equivalent to a block of ice the size of Manhattan...and 3.5 miles thick. (No East the gains on East Antarctica do not offset the losses in West Antarctica; West is losing mass far faster; local climate is picking up some of the moisture, and that becomes precipitation in East, but its not where near the enough to offset the losses from West...its barely enough to offset the melting occuring in East Antarctica as it is).
So much Antacrtic ice is melting that its changing the salinty of the local ocean water, decreasing it, which is causing a increase in the amount of SEA ice (due to the fresher water being able to freeze at a higher temperature). Note that this increase in sea ice is very small, much smaller than the lost land ice.
The rate of increase of CO2 is over 333,000x faster than the historical rates before humans. We managed to accomplish in 200 years what it took nature millions of years to accomplish.
The natural carbon cycle is largely carbon neutral. While nature may have some ability to absorb some of our excess carbon, we cause an imbalance because we dump over 40 billion tons of CO2 into the air -every year-, far more than nature can absorb. For comparison, volcanoes only emit 0.3 billion tons of CO2 (so not, its not volcanoes).
(no, we dont care what tv weathermen, or physicists, or brain surgeons have to say about it)
You say that like it means it might not.
If I park a car at the top of a hill and let off the parking brake...I expect it to roll downhill. Do you think it wouldnt?
If I toss a chunk of ice into a fire...I expect it to melt. Do you think it wouldnt?
on the contrary, it will work extremely well.
many people can be convinced to shell out small amounts monthly rather than shelling out a large amount once.
there is also a sizable population who has no (perceived) choice as they cannot afford the large up front cost, but can much more easily afford a small monthly hit, even though it means they end up paying more in the long run.
And because I know someone is giong to mention the McDonalds coffee lawsuit lady....
most people who refer to that case dont know the facts of that case:
An elderly woman (79yo) suffered 3rd degree burns across large portions of her lower body because the combination of the extremely hot coffee and the type of clothes she was wearing held the hot liquid in close contact with his skin which made the burns worse than would otherwise have been expected.
She required extensive skin grafting as a result of said burns.
She wasn't out for money: having total costs incurred of ~18k$ she sought a settlement with McD's for 20k.
McD's offered her only 800$ instead.
That's when she brought suit.
Two mediations for arbitration were scheduled.
McD's ignored both and did not attend even though it agreed to them each time.
Documents obtained from McDonalds were presented at trial showing over 700 other people burned by the coffee, and that McD's had settled with them.
McD's own quality control manager stated the number of complaints was too low to justify a change...but then also stated that foods hotter than 130F constituted a burn hazard. The latter statement was then used by elderly woman's attorneys to point out that McD's themselves had jsut acknoledged in court their coffee was likely to cause injury if consumed immediately.
The jury quickly decided in her favor and then awarded her the 200k she was seeking, and an addition 2million in punitive damages against the company.
This punitive amount was then reduced by the judge, resulting in total damamges awarded of ~640k.
Both parties then appealed (McDs appealed first, and she appealed as well as a defensive tactic).
They then settled out of court for less than the awarded amount.
you can sue anyone for anything in the country.
you could probably sue a ham sandwich if you wanted.
its been that from the start and not a recent trend.
all that matters is that you can prove your case in a court of law.
this is a good thing, as any arbitrary limits placed on a citizens right or ability to bring suit will invariably result in abuses by the potential plaintiffs who are now protected from suit. yes people bring stupid lawsuits. most of those lawsuits dont go anywhere when presented toa judge or a jury of peers. if they do, well tough kitty kibbles: that's our legal system is setup: if you can prove your case in a court of law, then so be it. this is an area where maximal freedom should be the norm.
No, what didn't help Eric Garner was being choked by a police officer who told not to choke people.
Would you say the same thing if he was detained as a possible suspect in a burglarly, hit or run, or other crime?
The relevent facts, the only relevent facts are:
-NYPD is not allowed to use chokehold compliance techniques due to numerous accidental deaths being caused by it in the past
-The NYPD used a chokehold compliance technique on Eric Garner
-Eric Garner then died as a result of said chokehold compliance technique.
The reason for detainment is completely irrelevent to the case.
He was being detained and an improper compliance technique was used, which resulted in his death at the hands of the NYPD.
Thus also resulting in the denial of his his rights as an American Citizen to due process under the the Constitution.
That's all that matters.