CO2 is the primary green house gas that has been rising. And it is in fact a major greenhouse gas. You see the majority of greenhouse gases blanketing the earth are in fact O3 (Ozone), however a C02 molecule is much more effective, ~200 times as effective (can't link to my course notes unfortunately) as Ozone at turning visible light into infrared (heat).
Nope, most of the Earth's greenhouse effect is not caused by CO2 or O3. Check your sources, or find new sources because they're not telling you the whole story. The major greenhouse gas causes 65-95 percent of the heating, so you're apparently missing something.
Thus, a change in C02 levels can lead to temperature change. Of course earth is a dynamic system and adjusts to change, so the effects won't be that noticeable until a critical level is reached and a cascading effect takes place (much like adding enough energy to a process to allow a reaction to occur).
Oh, it's more complex than a simple linear system where things happen at increasing levels as a single factor increases. We know how some factors behave, we know of some factors with unknown effects, and some effects imply unknown factors. There are many thresholds.
As for fossil fuels in 1945, we have been burning coal far longer then that in far greater abundance. During the industrial age, Europe experienced adverse climate conditions that many attribute to the blankets of fumes pouring out of the smoke stacks.
Early coal use? Let's see.. First page of one Google search, two clicks..
Global Carbon Emissions. Human carbon emissions are 7 times greater than in 1900. If human CO2 is the major greenhouse gas, the Earth's greenhouse warming of 33C (60F) should have increased by a significant fraction of 7 times. It seems a tad cooler than 270C (420F). Your information suggests we're at the limit of your knowledge, but perhaps you can see there's something missing.
Also, we have looked at ice samples of the past couple of hundred thousand years (far further then 15,000).
Yup. See any temperature changes, or have we had a constant temperature for a couple of hundred thousand years?
What's more, one can determine the carbon levels of the atmosphere based on ratios of carbon isotopes in plants. This allows us to ascertain that the highest levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the past 300 million years where during the time of the dinosaurs, where (during the triassic and cretaceous at least) they lived in an ice free world (no frozen poles) with considerably less land mass above water.
Well, no. Carbon 14 dating can measure plant age only for the recent tens of thousands of years. Atmospheric gas estimates over millions of years tends to be based upon estimated temperature limits of various plants and creatures.
And why do you think there was more carbon dioxide in the air during the Triassic and Cretaceous? Because the temperature was warm, there must have been more CO2? That's circular logic, probably required by assumptions that everything was like it is now, and air temperature changes are based only upon what is in the air.
Well, there wasn't ice covering Antarctica, but Antarctica wasn't how it now is. Things were different. A "Paleogeography" search will help you see where the continents were. There presently is cold water circulating around Antarctica, but that couldn't happen while other land masses were connected. Antarctica is smaller than the southern land mass back then. Even the recent climate of Antarctica
It is true that ice melting isn't new in the poles, after all the earth naturally shifts between warm and cold and we are currently on an up swing, with or with out our best efforts to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Ah, so we are currently on a natural upswing. So how much of current
Start with a simple factor which you haven't mentioned involving the Earth's major greenhouse gas: water vapor.
Increased temperature obviously encourages evaporation of water. Will that water stay as a gas, or will it cause greater cloud formation? Will those clouds be flat or tall? Look at today's weather satellite pictures -- are clouds an unusual event? What will cloud changes do to climate?
The facts are that the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are way higher now than they were a hundred years ago. Which greenhouse gases increased, and by how much? Has the major greenhouse gas (it's not CO2) increased? Does CO2 affect temperature, or does temperature affect CO2 levels? (For example, warmth encourages fermentation in swamps rather than burial of carbon)
The atmosphere is also warming at a rate unheard of since we started measuring these things That would be the warming during the past 100 years, the period when we've had thermometers. Look at that graph and how much warming happened before 1945, when we had little fossil fuels in use. After 1945...cooling for 30 years while we burned more fuels. How much has the rate of increase changed during warming periods?
and at a rate not found in any ice samples from the last several hundred thousand years. Look again. Start around 15,000 years ago and see if there was a rapid change back then.
Large chunks of very old ice is melting in Antarctica Check when that began melting, and compare the ages of ice. Melting is not new.
and there are island nations that will soon cease to exist due to rising ocean waters. Those reports have been studied in several ways, look at them again. Also check their tectonic base, such as whether they're in the large area west of Australia which is sinking.
Can we afford to ignore the possibility of a causal link? I believe we can't. Spend your money how you wish. Can you afford to ignore the possibility of a warmer Sun, secret misuse of alien technology, or a meteor destroying your ISP? Better prepare...better safe than sorry.
However, if we can determine overall changes long term...then this new research would not be needed.
Take a look at one small section of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). Note the uncertainties and many "improvements" since the previous report, the SAR upon which the Kyoto protocol is based. Browse the report further for more uncertainties and recent discoveries.
We simply don't know enough about climate yet. For example, water causes most of the planet's greenhouse effect. Increased temperatures will obviously put more water in the atmosphere. But how much will stay as water vapor, and how much will condense into clouds? And will greater cloud cover be as a thin horizontal layer (which might cool the planet if it reflects more sunlight, or might warm the planet as a blanket which traps heat), or will the increased water appear as vertical rain-producing clouds?
There are several indicators that Earth did not have a massive carbon dioxide atmosphere, as well as that oil and natural gas are from virgin carbon and not recycled.
There were not increasingly greater deposits of carbonate rocks created further back in time.
Carbon isotope ratios have not become altered due to recycling.
Carbon is being removed from the atmosphere at a rate which would remove all carbon dioxide in 500,000 years. Plants haven't all died off over millions of years, so either new carbon is being released or we are quite unlucky to be on a planet soon dead.
Natural gas, oil, and coal are found together with the thicker materials usually being closer to the surface. If coal and oil are from separate origins they should be likely to appear in isolated deposits and at any depth.
And that our climate models are wrong is a given. If our models are right, why are these researchers adding, and trying, new factors? Because we don't understand climate well enough to have good models.
They need to release a female version that is triggered whenever someone is staring at their chest.
So just put the glasses there.
And I'm sure what you're wearing on your head or chest has nothing to do with where people stare.
Even if it is large sunglasses with lights, wires, and lenses.
And a flashing sign saying "What are you staring at?"
Well, as you must be able to pay what you bid, go ahead and bid as high as you want. But if you have $5,000 you'll only be able to bid for 1 share at $5,000, 10 shares at $500, 20 at $250, or 40 at $125. You'll want as many shares as you can. So those playing the high-price game will affect a small number of shares.
Follow the links and you'll see what a Skycar is made of. The speed does not require much stronger materials than a car requires. If you've ever crashed you know a car doesn't withstand anything over a few MPH.
You'll also see that the Skycar has two parachutes. The first models will require a pilot's license, but by the time consumers are buying them the high speed flight will only be done under computer control. Manual flight will be slow, and taking a car out of manual mode will make it shed the speed before you get close to anything...because "manual mode" still involves asking the computers to move the thing.
No, the crackers are made out of flour. They're transformed into actual Jesus on the spot just before you eat them, so they don't have time to get stale.
A well established use of Just-In-Time manufacturing.
I think it a fine invention. Beer has a greater impact on the world thus far than quantum computing.
Also, like quantum computing, beer causes all possible solutions to a problem to be tested. However, quantum computing's challenge is in finding the right solution while with beer it is to restrict the number of problems examined.
Have you ever heard the old adage that a squirrel could walk from Maine to Florida without touching the ground?
Have you ever considered it might not be true? Have you ever considered how much flammable dead wood would accumulate in such a "SUPER-dense" forest? Have you ever considered how much damage a hurricane does to a forest? Have you ever considered solid walls of trees might be somewhat inconvenient to fire wielding and tool using natives?
damn your car is a gas guzzler!
504 gallons to go 1 mile!
With its big gas tank, of course it is.
However, I'm putting one of them newfangled "wheel" things on the vehicle next week. We'll see if that improves the MPG. If it does, I'll try two of them. I've got room for about twenty wheels, so there is some possibility for improvement.
I'm impressed! Not many people could tell you where to find a photo of a rabbit, with a pancake on it's head, on the Internet.
Does it count if he stumbled across the photo a year ago and bookmarked it, because he uses it every two weeks? Or maybe he took the picture a while ago and looks for suitable places for it.
Or maybe you just don't recognize the traditional Wales agricultural ownership brand, the Welsh rare-bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, most of the Earth's greenhouse effect is not caused by CO2 or O3. Check your sources, or find new sources because they're not telling you the whole story. The major greenhouse gas causes 65-95 percent of the heating, so you're apparently missing something.
Oh, it's more complex than a simple linear system where things happen at increasing levels as a single factor increases. We know how some factors behave, we know of some factors with unknown effects, and some effects imply unknown factors. There are many thresholds.
Early coal use? Let's see.. First page of one Google search, two clicks.. Global Carbon Emissions. Human carbon emissions are 7 times greater than in 1900. If human CO2 is the major greenhouse gas, the Earth's greenhouse warming of 33C (60F) should have increased by a significant fraction of 7 times. It seems a tad cooler than 270C (420F). Your information suggests we're at the limit of your knowledge, but perhaps you can see there's something missing.
Yup. See any temperature changes, or have we had a constant temperature for a couple of hundred thousand years?
Well, no. Carbon 14 dating can measure plant age only for the recent tens of thousands of years. Atmospheric gas estimates over millions of years tends to be based upon estimated temperature limits of various plants and creatures.
And why do you think there was more carbon dioxide in the air during the Triassic and Cretaceous? Because the temperature was warm, there must have been more CO2? That's circular logic, probably required by assumptions that everything was like it is now, and air temperature changes are based only upon what is in the air.
Well, there wasn't ice covering Antarctica, but Antarctica wasn't how it now is. Things were different. A "Paleogeography" search will help you see where the continents were. There presently is cold water circulating around Antarctica, but that couldn't happen while other land masses were connected. Antarctica is smaller than the southern land mass back then. Even the recent climate of Antarctica
Ah, so we are currently on a natural upswing. So how much of current
If you don't want us to die out, get us off this planet. All our eggs are in this one basket, at the bottom of a gravity well.
Start with a simple factor which you haven't mentioned involving the Earth's major greenhouse gas: water vapor.
Increased temperature obviously encourages evaporation of water. Will that water stay as a gas, or will it cause greater cloud formation? Will those clouds be flat or tall? Look at today's weather satellite pictures -- are clouds an unusual event? What will cloud changes do to climate?
Which greenhouse gases increased, and by how much? Has the major greenhouse gas (it's not CO2) increased? Does CO2 affect temperature, or does temperature affect CO2 levels? (For example, warmth encourages fermentation in swamps rather than burial of carbon)
The atmosphere is also warming at a rate unheard of since we started measuring these things
That would be the warming during the past 100 years, the period when we've had thermometers. Look at that graph and how much warming happened before 1945, when we had little fossil fuels in use. After 1945...cooling for 30 years while we burned more fuels. How much has the rate of increase changed during warming periods?
and at a rate not found in any ice samples from the last several hundred thousand years.
Look again. Start around 15,000 years ago and see if there was a rapid change back then.
Large chunks of very old ice is melting in Antarctica
Check when that began melting, and compare the ages of ice. Melting is not new.
and there are island nations that will soon cease to exist due to rising ocean waters.
Those reports have been studied in several ways, look at them again. Also check their tectonic base, such as whether they're in the large area west of Australia which is sinking.
Can we afford to ignore the possibility of a causal link? I believe we can't.
Spend your money how you wish. Can you afford to ignore the possibility of a warmer Sun, secret misuse of alien technology, or a meteor destroying your ISP? Better prepare...better safe than sorry.
Take a look at one small section of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). Note the uncertainties and many "improvements" since the previous report, the SAR upon which the Kyoto protocol is based. Browse the report further for more uncertainties and recent discoveries.
We simply don't know enough about climate yet. For example, water causes most of the planet's greenhouse effect. Increased temperatures will obviously put more water in the atmosphere. But how much will stay as water vapor, and how much will condense into clouds? And will greater cloud cover be as a thin horizontal layer (which might cool the planet if it reflects more sunlight, or might warm the planet as a blanket which traps heat), or will the increased water appear as vertical rain-producing clouds?
The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth
And that our climate models are wrong is a given. If our models are right, why are these researchers adding, and trying, new factors? Because we don't understand climate well enough to have good models.
So just put the glasses there.
And I'm sure what you're wearing on your head or chest has nothing to do with where people stare.
Even if it is large sunglasses with lights, wires, and lenses.
And a flashing sign saying "What are you staring at?"
They deliver the videos to your doorstep!
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 loaded with videotape.
If you leave a string in each run, changes are much easier. Do not use cotton, use something which won't rot.
Well, as you must be able to pay what you bid, go ahead and bid as high as you want. But if you have $5,000 you'll only be able to bid for 1 share at $5,000, 10 shares at $500, 20 at $250, or 40 at $125. You'll want as many shares as you can. So those playing the high-price game will affect a small number of shares.
You'll also see that the Skycar has two parachutes. The first models will require a pilot's license, but by the time consumers are buying them the high speed flight will only be done under computer control. Manual flight will be slow, and taking a car out of manual mode will make it shed the speed before you get close to anything...because "manual mode" still involves asking the computers to move the thing.
A well established use of Just-In-Time manufacturing.
Also, like quantum computing, beer causes all possible solutions to a problem to be tested. However, quantum computing's challenge is in finding the right solution while with beer it is to restrict the number of problems examined.
Have you ever considered it might not be true? Have you ever considered how much flammable dead wood would accumulate in such a "SUPER-dense" forest? Have you ever considered how much damage a hurricane does to a forest? Have you ever considered solid walls of trees might be somewhat inconvenient to fire wielding and tool using natives?
Here's a more detailed look at the situation: Piedmont savanna
504 gallons to go 1 mile!
With its big gas tank, of course it is.
However, I'm putting one of them newfangled "wheel" things on the vehicle next week. We'll see if that improves the MPG. If it does, I'll try two of them. I've got room for about twenty wheels, so there is some possibility for improvement.
And they always fly a decimal fraction of the Earth's circumference.
If all the neighbors and bystanders are armed, would it really be a good idea to wave a gun around?
An armed society is a polite society. Particularly polite in practicing proper aiming etiquette.
Uh. No, I didn't read the article. It is being kept from me behind a demand for me to produce identification.
Does it count if he stumbled across the photo a year ago and bookmarked it, because he uses it every two weeks? Or maybe he took the picture a while ago and looks for suitable places for it.
Or maybe you just don't recognize the traditional Wales agricultural ownership brand, the Welsh rare-bit.
I, for one, welcome the calming influence of our grandfather posts.
Well, that's two flights more than most spacecraft achieve.
Is a rail gun a firearm?
Oh, it's quite relevant. For the same reason that when Internet access is outlawed, only outlaws will have Internet access.
Just add a requirement that the devices not report someone who is wearing a tinfoil hat. And define "tinfoil".
If the ship comes down and bounces back up to orbit, does that count as two trips?