It's extremely difficult to accept at face value a report that says every possible outcome from climate change is bad.
That one is very easy to answer: our argiculture and complete ecosystem is optimised for the current climate. So any change in climate is almost guaranteed the have worse results.
Yes you will find some positive aspects too but the fact that our climate is changing will introduce a change in our way of life. And nobody likes change (least of all you and all other deniers).
Right! And just to prove your point (and purely out of my love "ah sweet luve" for science) I'm going to lock myself up with SCII until I'm at the "master" level. Damn the wife and kids!
Will be forgotten in no time! The economical elite and their political laceys will get this article downplayed and kept away from the forefront. If there would be any kind of debate on TV (yeah, right) they'll just schedule another rebroadcast of 'Dallas' on the other channel. That should do the trick;-)
That's why I regularly, instead of driving to the place I need to go, cover the terain on foot. Doing so, I get to know the environment better and have a better understanding of the function of a car.
Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy.
I have 2 problems with this statement: 1. You let your judgement on what is the scientific consensus on a certain subject depend on wether or not you like the result. 2. You seem to be under the impression that doing nothing involves no cost. The scientific consensus states the reverse: the bill will be bigger but will be delayed a bit (doing nothing ==> higher impact on climate ==> more costs due to climate change (more storms, more impact on agriculture, more impact on water management (extreme waterfall alternated with periods of draught), rising sea level,...)
If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.
More than reasons enough. Question is: what are we going to do about it. As explained: people are going to pay up anyway. Do you want to do your part and make the bill a bit more bearable for the next generation or do you subornly put your head in the sand?
Personally I reckon that human activity probably does play a reasonably large part in accelerating climate change that was happening anyway (although 99% sets off my bullshit meter given that we're in an interglacial period), or pushing it over the point where we won't return to the next ie age, but in order to address it we'd have to get developing titans like India and China to play along, and good luck with that.
So, again: you say you believe we as humans are responsible for the climate change but, in essence, you can't be bothered to do something about it. Instead you point to China: they are the guilty ones! If you look at the figures though you see that the US has a much higher release of CO2 per capita than China. So what we need to avoid is that China would follow the example of the US...
The best policy for the forward thinking nation is perhaps to simply prepare for flooding and adverse weather conditions.
. We will need to do that anyway. But to keep the costs of this 'preparation' under control the gravity of the adverse weather condition must be kept under control. And for that we need drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise the taxes you are so afraid of will be much higher and people will have to "pay up".
First of all: we have already 60+ years behind us. When you say 'non catastrophic 1C I suppose you are referring to the 2C limit the IPPC puts forward as being pivotal. But this 2C is compared to 'pre industrial temparatures' so that is since about 1950. So by 2100 @ 0,11 C per decade we are at 1,65 C. Not 1C.
Second: you assume a linear relationship. This is not so. What I merely tried to point out is that a temporary deviation does not invalidate a model that is build for longer time and makes abstraction of these variations which are neutral (solar activity goes up and down so this is not taken into account in the climate models, same for vulcano eruptions).
Third and foremost: there is a good reason why it is NOT a linear relationship: CO2 emmission have gone exponential since pre industrial times. So it seems logical that temperatures will not respond in a linear way either. Want proof? In the 15 year period jus before the so called hiatus the rate was 0,21 C per decade. If we project that towards 2100 we get 3.15 C wich is well over the 2 norm. And this is a 'catastrophic' level.
And this would mean that the absolutely catstrophic level of 4C would be reached by 2140. But we know that the response is very likely not linear at all and that if we do nothing the 4C could be reached even by 2100. Not a conforting thought is it?
So you proved that cherry picking data is dangerous. My point exactly.
What Box 9.2 says is: 1. The period 1998-2012 is not really an hiatus at all. 1998 was exceptionally warm and the heating of the oceans continued more or less as before. 2. Yes the surface temprature in that period was less than the models predicted but in the period before it was higher than most models predicted. 3. There are good reasons why this was so:
- Lower solar forcing (being exceptionally high in 2000 and exceptionally low in 2010)
- Higher aerosol loading due to a series of vulcano eruptions
In other words: typical variablility factors which does nothing to diminish the global trend of 0.11C per decade over 1951–2012 (a 60 year period)
You may be right, on a geological scale. But in short term the impact of any climate change on the crop yield is almost certain to be negative. Why? Because the type of crop the way they are grown and selected are optimised for the current use. Our agriculture has a yield that is a multitude of what would be possible in nature. It is a highly engineerd piece of science. When something as fundamental as temperature, rainfall etc. changes. Yield will fall.
Also, you focus on one thing. Don't forget the draught. More storms. Rising sea levels.
We will adapt. Don't get me wrong. We will have to because, unlike what some think: the effects of global warming are comming. How big they will be is still up for debate but we will face the consequences no matter what. And since we are used to our current climate this will not be an easy nor agreeable process.
Much of the global warming skepticism has been fueled lately by the decade long pause in the global warming average. It seems what I can gather from this is while many areas are hotter than they were previously, other places are somewhat cooler, so it balances out.
No it doesn't.
"For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1)." (IPPC SPM WG1AR5 report).
The figure referred to shows that although a small region in the atlantic ocean has showed a small temperature decrease of 0,6C most parts of the world show an increase of 0,6 up to 2,5C.
I just wanted to point out how well the summary for policy makers of the latest report (AR5) of work group 1 responds to most common misunderstandings about global warming (just in case you aren't one of these nutcases that dismiss the IPPC as 'biased' or something).
This wide range is not only the result of uncertainties in the climate modelling but is also a function of how we will respond to this climate crisis. Not at all? Get ready for the upper scale of this bracket (2 C and up). If we respond well we may stay below the 2 but this requires drastic measures to be taken quickly.
And call them what? The girls I mean. * Escorte girls because they join you on you long and ardous voyage through insurmoutable coding problems? 5 mins and they 're asleep. * Confort girls because they confort you in the feeling that all the sacrefices you make (no social life, even your own mother doesn't recognise you from time to time) is worth it for the bigger good? Well the bigger the better I'd say. * Geisha because you think her excuisite table manners reflects the refinement you put in you code crafting? Until she compares with YOUR table manners, that is.
Or just hooker since she will gobble up you money, your energy and eventually your job (or do you really think you can go back to coding after having tasted heaven?)
Just mail them to get your data back? I tried it and it worked like a charm. The next day the latest copy of my document was in my maibox. They even had gone through the trouble of correcting a few spelling errors, a misspelled name and a glitch in the layout.
There are experiments about what helps pupils best to get better with mathematics, and it has been shown that drill and constant exercise is the most effective way, even for complexer mathematical problems.
That's a great way to train drones who don't understand the how & why
You assume that by drilling and training only the memory is trained. This is not so. If students learn something for the first time they tend to use their memory mostly without much understanding. Only through training, execises they learn to use the concepts behind it and find out about the subtle problems behind it. And only through drilling can they archieve the necessary level needed to get to these subtle cases. You have to get them to 'play' with it.
The result is that those who have been well trained retain their knowlege much better than those who just memorised everything and switched to the next level.
Have you considered the following possibility: that the law (in general, as in the body rules) was badly upheld in this case? Firstly the ruling said that someone wearing a skirt is not partially nude even when she does not have underwear on and what is under her skirt is exposed. That seems like a very confusing ruling to say the least. Secondly the fact that her privacy and dignity has been completely violated seems to be completely ignored by this ruling. Thirdly: the police seemed very convinced that it WAS illegal because they set a special trap to catch this guy. It must be very frustrating to go to all this effort to catch a guy red handed and then have a high court shrug it off like: "I don't see anything wrong here".
If that court would have made the same reasoning as the lower court (after all what if the girl had no underwear on? Then suddenly his photo becomes illegal! What if she wore no bra and a part of her breasts comes into view? Then he is punishable?) things would not have come to this.
Islam has five pillars: declaration of belief, daily prayers, alms, fasting and Mecca pilgrimage.
Liberalism also has five pillars: democracy, darwinism, global warming, gay marriage and right to elective abortion.
you are a theocrat and a totalitarian. [...] There's also no such thing as Darwinism. There's science, and science has shown that Evolution is an observed fact
Thank you for posting this darwinist version of Shahadah, and for doing so in a manner that truly illustrates how actual theocrats and totalitarians behave.
I think you are missing 2 points: First and foremost: there is no conflict between either pillars. Its not because you 'believe' (as you put it) in democracy and 'gay marriage' that you cannot do your prayer, adhere to the koran and do pelgrimage. There are millions of people who do just that. If fact in schools each of them have a separate subject and the appropriate time assigned to them. The only problem is that now religious believeres are going to dictate what should be taught in the other classes outside religion.
So this is indeed about respecting the other. There are science classes and religious classes. Please respect each other and don't dictate the other what to teach in THEIR time.
Secondly (but very related): democracy is not a belief. It is how the society is operating now. You can disagree with that (and there are a number of ways in which you can ventilate you griefs) but basically it's a given. Maybe by 'believing in democracy' you mean: believing it works. But the way you compare it now with religion suggest you kind of disagree with the fact that it exists. The same with gay marriage. It exists. It's still not allowed everywhere but looking at the current trend it seems plausible that it will. Again where is the 'belief'? Same for abortion. It is a trend in society. Agree or disagree, but there is no believing involved.
As for global warming and 'darwinism' (evolution through natural selection) I agree with the parent: how can you deny these phenomenon if the proof is staring you in the face? But again, I don't see the conflict with islam.
You can only generate net energy with D-T fusion and the reactor walls can't survive the neutron flux of D-T fusion long enough for a viable reactor to exist. Until THAT gets solved you are not going to see any commercial fusion reactor. Even if they solved that it is going to be huge and expensive. A lot more expensive than a fission nuclear reactor. Unless they manage to make the plasma more dense or something.
From the ITER FAQ: "How often will the ITER first wall need to be replaced during operation?
The current operation schedule does not include the replacement of the ITER first wall. However, provisions have been made for the possibility of changing it once during the lifetime of ITER, if necessary. The component which receives most of the power load from the plasma (the "divertor") will need to be replaced more than once during the lifetime of the machine. It has been designed specifically to allow this operation by remote handling. Individual components may also need to be replaced from time to time for corrective maintenance. "
Seems like your problem is solved. The problem of finding the correct materials to build the walls with is certainly not fully decided yet but it is not the main problem and certainly not a deal breaker.
The main problem is about the stability of the plasma. Or to be more specific: that there would be sufficient rotation of the plasma to create enough heat to have a sustainable "burning" plasma.
1. The F-35 is only steathy in the front. When doing close support you're in the middle of things and missile launch sites may be all around you. 2. It is only stealthy for X-band radar. Any longer bandwith radar (as many ground based radars have) can see it just fine. 3. It's only stealth if all weapons are carried inside: only 2 missiles (!) and no gun (except for the marine version I think). That is completely useless for close support. So for all practical purposes the F-35 won't be stealthy at all!! 4. In close support you have to fly low which means that people can see the aircraft visually and shoot it down with guns. No amount of stealth will help there. Only maneuverability, a good armour penetrating gun and excellent survivability. And that is the A10. NOT the F-35
I guess my point is, are model's accurate if they are too clean? too dirty? Is the earth uniformly clean/dirty?
Models are only really good at providing an average worst case. I'm not sure why people expect them to be so accurate. pre-existing conditions change, YMMV.
Well, they have studied this problem. And do you know what they found out?
The world is not clean enough. Not by a mile. So what we need to do is release much less dirt and greenhouse gasses (like CO2) into the world and then the models will be better;-)
NO, we should NOT simply dump millions/billions into trying whatever harebrained "band-aid" idea happens to float into the public consciousness today without extensive study.
I agree with you with one nuance: that we have studied the problem for more than 20 years and that there is a consensus: we simpy need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we put into the air. Watever other actions may or may not be possible or appropriate first priority is to stop the bleeding (to keep up the metaphore) and take away the cause of all these changes: the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into the air. Without that any solution is indeed a bandaid.
I would like to invite you to read the IPPC FAQ (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf) that contains the scientific consensus explained in layment terms (more or less) and answers all the typical denier questions: what are the factors that influence the climate, is the climate changing, can the changes be attributed to natural variations, is human activity responsible for the changes and indeed also: are the current models reliable.
If that doesn't convince you I suppose you could go through the actual AR4 report yourself and study the supporting materials (written by 209 scientists with contributions of 600 experts and reviewed by 50 reviewers).
I can't power my home with a personal coal power plant or power my home with a personal nuclear power plant. But I CAN power my home with a personal solar array or wind mill or whatever.
Those who complain about a powerline close to their home are certainly not be willing to have a huge windmill close by. And for your information: a small windmill in your backyard isn't going to cut it. You need a big industrial mill to get any meaningfull power output. This was the outcome of a study ordered by the dutch government where they were comparing several types of small windmills to see wich was best (none of them, they are all crap).
Slashdot Mirror
It's extremely difficult to accept at face value a report that says every possible outcome from climate change is bad.
That one is very easy to answer: our argiculture and complete ecosystem is optimised for the current climate. So any change in climate is almost guaranteed the have worse results.
Yes you will find some positive aspects too but the fact that our climate is changing will introduce a change in our way of life. And nobody likes change (least of all you and all other deniers).
And denying change will only make it bigger etc.
Right! And just to prove your point (and purely out of my love "ah sweet luve" for science) I'm going to lock myself up with SCII until I'm at the "master" level.
Damn the wife and kids!
See you there (or at my funeral)!
Will be forgotten in no time! The economical elite and their political laceys will get this article downplayed and kept away from the forefront.
If there would be any kind of debate on TV (yeah, right) they'll just schedule another rebroadcast of 'Dallas' on the other channel. That should do the trick;-)
That's why I regularly, instead of driving to the place I need to go, cover the terain on foot. Doing so, I get to know the environment better and have a better understanding of the function of a car.
I call it "going for a walk".
Because embracing anthropic climate change involves drastic controls on emissions, manufacturing, and energy generation (specifically coal) as well as being an excuse to raise a variety of taxes on an already strained economy.
I have 2 problems with this statement: ...)
1. You let your judgement on what is the scientific consensus on a certain subject depend on wether or not you like the result.
2. You seem to be under the impression that doing nothing involves no cost. The scientific consensus states the reverse: the bill will be bigger but will be delayed a bit (doing nothing ==> higher impact on climate ==> more costs due to climate change (more storms, more impact on agriculture, more impact on water management (extreme waterfall alternated with periods of draught), rising sea level,
If something's going to hit them in the pocket people are going to want a lot of good reasons to pay up.
More than reasons enough. Question is: what are we going to do about it. As explained: people are going to pay up anyway. Do you want to do your part and make the bill a bit more bearable for the next generation or do you subornly put your head in the sand?
Personally I reckon that human activity probably does play a reasonably large part in accelerating climate change that was happening anyway (although 99% sets off my bullshit meter given that we're in an interglacial period), or pushing it over the point where we won't return to the next ie age, but in order to address it we'd have to get developing titans like India and China to play along, and good luck with that.
So, again: you say you believe we as humans are responsible for the climate change but, in essence, you can't be bothered to do something about it. Instead you point to China: they are the guilty ones! If you look at the figures though you see that the US has a much higher release of CO2 per capita than China. So what we need to avoid is that China would follow the example of the US...
The best policy for the forward thinking nation is perhaps to simply prepare for flooding and adverse weather conditions.
.
We will need to do that anyway. But to keep the costs of this 'preparation' under control the gravity of the adverse weather condition must be kept under control. And for that we need drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise the taxes you are so afraid of will be much higher and people will have to "pay up".
So this is perfectly normal.
And now it's scientifically proven..
O.My.God.
First of all: we have already 60+ years behind us. When you say 'non catastrophic 1C I suppose you are referring to the 2C limit the IPPC puts forward as being pivotal. But this 2C is compared to 'pre industrial temparatures' so that is since about 1950. So by 2100 @ 0,11 C per decade we are at 1,65 C. Not 1C.
Second: you assume a linear relationship. This is not so. What I merely tried to point out is that a temporary deviation does not invalidate a model that is build for longer time and makes abstraction of these variations which are neutral (solar activity goes up and down so this is not taken into account in the climate models, same for vulcano eruptions).
Third and foremost: there is a good reason why it is NOT a linear relationship: CO2 emmission have gone exponential since pre industrial times. So it seems logical that temperatures will not respond in a linear way either. Want proof? In the 15 year period jus before the so called hiatus the rate was 0,21 C per decade. If we project that towards 2100 we get 3.15 C wich is well over the 2 norm. And this is a 'catastrophic' level.
And this would mean that the absolutely catstrophic level of 4C would be reached by 2140. But we know that the response is very likely not linear at all and that if we do nothing the 4C could be reached even by 2100. Not a conforting thought is it?
So you proved that cherry picking data is dangerous. My point exactly.
What Box 9.2 says is:
1. The period 1998-2012 is not really an hiatus at all. 1998 was exceptionally warm and the heating of the oceans continued more or less as before.
2. Yes the surface temprature in that period was less than the models predicted but in the period before it was higher than most models predicted.
3. There are good reasons why this was so:
- Lower solar forcing (being exceptionally high in 2000 and exceptionally low in 2010)
- Higher aerosol loading due to a series of vulcano eruptions
In other words: typical variablility factors which does nothing to diminish the global trend of 0.11C per decade over 1951–2012 (a 60 year period)
...and it's the slashdot post that makes you think about buying it... /. is the source of all evil.
So once more
All told, the card features 5,760 CUDA cores (2,880 per GPU) and 12GB of frame buffer memory—6GB per GPU
So... does that mean that the graphics card I just bought is outdated already??
You may be right, on a geological scale. But in short term the impact of any climate change on the crop yield is almost certain to be negative.
Why? Because the type of crop the way they are grown and selected are optimised for the current use.
Our agriculture has a yield that is a multitude of what would be possible in nature. It is a highly engineerd piece of science. When something as fundamental as temperature, rainfall etc. changes. Yield will fall.
Also, you focus on one thing. Don't forget the draught. More storms. Rising sea levels.
We will adapt. Don't get me wrong. We will have to because, unlike what some think: the effects of global warming are comming. How big they will be is still up for debate but we will face the consequences no matter what. And since we are used to our current climate this will not be an easy nor agreeable process.
Much of the global warming skepticism has been fueled lately by the decade long pause in the global warming average. It seems what I can gather from this is while many areas are hotter than they were previously, other places are somewhat cooler, so it balances out.
No it doesn't.
"For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe
has experienced surface warming (see Figure SPM.1)." (IPPC SPM WG1AR5 report).
The figure referred to shows that although a small region in the atlantic ocean has showed a small temperature decrease of 0,6C most parts of the world show an increase of 0,6 up to 2,5C.
I just wanted to point out how well the summary for policy makers of the latest report (AR5) of work group 1 responds to most common misunderstandings about global warming (just in case you aren't one of these nutcases that dismiss the IPPC as 'biased' or something).
This wide range is not only the result of uncertainties in the climate modelling but is also a function of how we will respond to this climate crisis.
Not at all? Get ready for the upper scale of this bracket (2 C and up). If we respond well we may stay below the 2 but this requires drastic measures to be taken quickly.
And call them what? The girls I mean.
* Escorte girls because they join you on you long and ardous voyage through insurmoutable coding problems? 5 mins and they 're asleep.
* Confort girls because they confort you in the feeling that all the sacrefices you make (no social life, even your own mother doesn't recognise you from time to time) is worth it for the bigger good? Well the bigger the better I'd say.
* Geisha because you think her excuisite table manners reflects the refinement you put in you code crafting? Until she compares with YOUR table manners, that is.
Or just hooker since she will gobble up you money, your energy and eventually your job (or do you really think you can go back to coding after having tasted heaven?)
Just mail them to get your data back? I tried it and it worked like a charm. The next day the latest copy of my document was in my maibox.
They even had gone through the trouble of correcting a few spelling errors, a misspelled name and a glitch in the layout.
They did censor the part about privacy though.
There are experiments about what helps pupils best to get better with mathematics, and it has been shown that drill and constant exercise is the most effective way, even for complexer mathematical problems.
That's a great way to train drones who don't understand the how & why
You assume that by drilling and training only the memory is trained. This is not so. If students learn something for the first time they tend to use their memory mostly without much understanding. Only through training, execises they learn to use the concepts behind it and find out about the subtle problems behind it. And only through drilling can they archieve the necessary level needed to get to these subtle cases. You have to get them to 'play' with it.
The result is that those who have been well trained retain their knowlege much better than those who just memorised everything and switched to the next level.
Have you considered the following possibility: that the law (in general, as in the body rules) was badly upheld in this case?
Firstly the ruling said that someone wearing a skirt is not partially nude even when she does not have underwear on and what is under her skirt is exposed. That seems like a very confusing ruling to say the least.
Secondly the fact that her privacy and dignity has been completely violated seems to be completely ignored by this ruling.
Thirdly: the police seemed very convinced that it WAS illegal because they set a special trap to catch this guy. It must be very frustrating to go to all this effort to catch a guy red handed and then have a high court shrug it off like: "I don't see anything wrong here".
If that court would have made the same reasoning as the lower court (after all what if the girl had no underwear on? Then suddenly his photo becomes illegal! What if she wore no bra and a part of her breasts comes into view? Then he is punishable?) things would not have come to this.
Islam has five pillars: declaration of belief, daily prayers, alms, fasting and Mecca pilgrimage.
Liberalism also has five pillars: democracy, darwinism, global warming, gay marriage and right to elective abortion.
you are a theocrat and a totalitarian.
[...] There's also no such thing as Darwinism. There's science, and science has shown that Evolution is an observed fact
Thank you for posting this darwinist version of Shahadah, and for doing so in a manner that truly illustrates how actual theocrats and totalitarians behave.
I think you are missing 2 points:
First and foremost: there is no conflict between either pillars. Its not because you 'believe' (as you put it) in democracy and 'gay marriage' that you cannot do your prayer, adhere to the koran and do pelgrimage. There are millions of people who do just that. If fact in schools each of them have a separate subject and the appropriate time assigned to them. The only problem is that now religious believeres are going to dictate what should be taught in the other classes outside religion.
So this is indeed about respecting the other. There are science classes and religious classes. Please respect each other and don't dictate the other what to teach in THEIR time.
Secondly (but very related): democracy is not a belief. It is how the society is operating now. You can disagree with that (and there are a number of ways in which you can ventilate you griefs) but basically it's a given. Maybe by 'believing in democracy' you mean: believing it works. But the way you compare it now with religion suggest you kind of disagree with the fact that it exists. The same with gay marriage. It exists. It's still not allowed everywhere but looking at the current trend it seems plausible that it will. Again where is the 'belief'? Same for abortion. It is a trend in society. Agree or disagree, but there is no believing involved.
As for global warming and 'darwinism' (evolution through natural selection) I agree with the parent: how can you deny these phenomenon if the proof is staring you in the face? But again, I don't see the conflict with islam.
You can only generate net energy with D-T fusion and the reactor walls can't survive the neutron flux of D-T fusion long enough for a viable reactor to exist. Until THAT gets solved you are not going to see any commercial fusion reactor. Even if they solved that it is going to be huge and expensive. A lot more expensive than a fission nuclear reactor. Unless they manage to make the plasma more dense or something.
From the ITER FAQ:
"How often will the ITER first wall need to be replaced during operation?
The current operation schedule does not include the replacement of the ITER first wall. However, provisions have been made for the possibility of changing it once during the lifetime of ITER, if necessary. The component which receives most of the power load from the plasma (the "divertor") will need to be replaced more than once during the lifetime of the machine. It has been designed specifically to allow this operation by remote handling. Individual components may also need to be replaced from time to time for corrective maintenance. "
Seems like your problem is solved.
The problem of finding the correct materials to build the walls with is certainly not fully decided yet but it is not the main problem and certainly not a deal breaker.
The main problem is about the stability of the plasma. Or to be more specific: that there would be sufficient rotation of the plasma to create enough heat to have a sustainable "burning" plasma.
1. The F-35 is only steathy in the front. When doing close support you're in the middle of things and missile launch sites may be all around you.
2. It is only stealthy for X-band radar. Any longer bandwith radar (as many ground based radars have) can see it just fine.
3. It's only stealth if all weapons are carried inside: only 2 missiles (!) and no gun (except for the marine version I think). That is completely useless for close support. So for all practical purposes the F-35 won't be stealthy at all!!
4. In close support you have to fly low which means that people can see the aircraft visually and shoot it down with guns. No amount of stealth will help there. Only maneuverability, a good armour penetrating gun and excellent survivability. And that is the A10. NOT the F-35
I guess my point is, are model's accurate if they are too clean? too dirty? Is the earth uniformly clean/dirty?
Models are only really good at providing an average worst case. I'm not sure why people expect them to be so accurate. pre-existing conditions change, YMMV.
Well, they have studied this problem. And do you know what they found out?
The world is not clean enough. Not by a mile. So what we need to do is release much less dirt and greenhouse gasses (like CO2) into the world and then the models will be better ;-)
NO, we should NOT simply dump millions/billions into trying whatever harebrained "band-aid" idea happens to float into the public consciousness today without extensive study.
I agree with you with one nuance: that we have studied the problem for more than 20 years and that there is a consensus: we simpy need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we put into the air. Watever other actions may or may not be possible or appropriate first priority is to stop the bleeding (to keep up the metaphore) and take away the cause of all these changes: the amount of greenhouse gasses that are released into the air.
Without that any solution is indeed a bandaid.
I would like to invite you to read the IPPC FAQ (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf) that contains the scientific consensus explained in layment terms (more or less) and answers all the typical denier questions: what are the factors that influence the climate, is the climate changing, can the changes be attributed to natural variations, is human activity responsible for the changes and indeed also: are the current models reliable.
If that doesn't convince you I suppose you could go through the actual AR4 report yourself and study the supporting materials (written by 209 scientists with contributions of 600 experts and reviewed by 50 reviewers).
I can't power my home with a personal coal power plant or power my home with a personal nuclear power plant. But I CAN power my home with a personal solar array or wind mill or whatever.
Those who complain about a powerline close to their home are certainly not be willing to have a huge windmill close by. And for your information: a small windmill in your backyard isn't going to cut it. You need a big industrial mill to get any meaningfull power output. This was the outcome of a study ordered by the dutch government where they were comparing several types of small windmills to see wich was best (none of them, they are all crap).
I was with you till you said underground.
Since 'undergroud' was the third word in his post, you weren't with him for a long time, it seems ;-)