No need to assume the models are right. It is quite simple to take samples of the atmosphere, and measure both CO2 and CH4 content and determine which is the biggest factor. You don't need a satellite for that. We know that the contribution of CO2 is much bigger than the contribution of methane.
You are aware of the words "all-time geological" and "[the sun's] lifetime" in my post ? Probably not, since your link refers to "recent decades". Please try again.,
Well, what about it ? If you're trying to make it point, it would help if you could produce some cold hard facts about the launch, and compare them to other human activities such as driving kids to soccer clubs.
The amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is about twice the observed atmospheric increase, so it's hard to imagine that it's not the primary driver. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to launch this satellite and learn more about the details.
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
Of course, but keep in mind that the sun has been getting hotter during its lifetime, so you can't just compare CO2 levels assuming everything else was the same.
That's not a problem. The CO2 that's released by humans (and animals) is produced by metabolising carbon from food, and the food comes from plants that have been grown recently. During their growth, the plants have absorbed an equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Even when eating meat, the animals are typically only a few years old and were fed on recently grown plants.
In contrast, the cars run on fossil fuels that are hundreds of million years old.
Cryptocurrencies are a good way of exchanging tokens, but just being able to exchange tokens doesn't mean that you've exchanged something of value
As long as other people are willing to trade items or work of value for these tokens, it would be reasonable for me to also attach a value to these tokens.
For example: assuming current exchange rate of about $600 for a bitcoin. Let's say you loaned a friend $400, and he's offering to pay you back with 1 bitcoin. Would you accept it, knowing that you can probably find someone to pay you more than $500 for it ? If so, it has value to you.
Or we can use both, and choose whichever is the most convenient at the time. A few weeks ago I ordered something from a Chinese producer, and made payment in bitcoin. Within a minute, the producer could see the transfer to his wallet, and could start the production run. The other options were to use paypal, and pay an extra fee, or to use an international wire transfer, adding several days of extra delay.
Example: The earth crust contains 5% iron. So, when you're talking about producing steel, the issue is not the availability of the raw materials. The problem of producing steel is purely the amount of energy you have to put in, to convert the raw materials into a finished end product.Therefore it is a completely honest representation to look at the amount of energy required to produce the steel for the wind turbine, and see how long the wind turbine needs to be operated before it has produced that much.
and if human intelligence and consciousness arise from brain activity, or emerge in other ways
If Quantum Field Theory is correct, there is no other way. And with the LHC performing 100 million collisions per second, every single one matching with QFT predictions, there's not much room left for big errors. There's only room for tiny adjustments whose effects would be too small to notice in daily life.
So, looking at your first graph, and seeing that the temperature went from that one blue line to the next in just 100 years, doesn't really leave the impression that there's nothing special going on. If it continues like this for another 100 years, it'll be the highest point in this graph.
The people you call "climate scientists" already form a very diverse group from lots of different backgrounds. Some dude digging up ice cores has a completely different expertise than somebody else checking out fossil leaves, or somebody update a climate model. And none of them have vested interests in the AGW theory. Plenty of them aren't even researching AGW.
Actually, deniers usually go like this:
Climate isn't changing (there's a pause!). Even if the climate is changing, it's not caused by CO2 (it's the sun!). Even if CO2 causes climate change, humans didn't produce it. Even if humans have caused it, the effect isn't bad (CO2 is good for plants!). Even if the effect is bad, it's not catastrophic (I like it a bit warmer where I live). Even if the effect is catastrophic, there's nothing we can do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
they may try to collect data from the plugged-in phone. Call-logs, pictures, locations you've visited
If they wanted to get data from your phone, wouldn't it be easier to just download it over the network while you're walking down the street ?
There are plenty of big cities where taxis aren't driven by multi-million dollar companies, but by single owners.
No need to assume the models are right. It is quite simple to take samples of the atmosphere, and measure both CO2 and CH4 content and determine which is the biggest factor. You don't need a satellite for that. We know that the contribution of CO2 is much bigger than the contribution of methane.
You are aware of the words "all-time geological" and "[the sun's] lifetime" in my post ? Probably not, since your link refers to "recent decades". Please try again.,
Well, what about it ? If you're trying to make it point, it would help if you could produce some cold hard facts about the launch, and compare them to other human activities such as driving kids to soccer clubs.
The amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is about twice the observed atmospheric increase, so it's hard to imagine that it's not the primary driver. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to launch this satellite and learn more about the details.
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
Of course, but keep in mind that the sun has been getting hotter during its lifetime, so you can't just compare CO2 levels assuming everything else was the same.
That's not a problem. The CO2 that's released by humans (and animals) is produced by metabolising carbon from food, and the food comes from plants that have been grown recently. During their growth, the plants have absorbed an equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. Even when eating meat, the animals are typically only a few years old and were fed on recently grown plants. In contrast, the cars run on fossil fuels that are hundreds of million years old.
We need a satellite to get (almost) real time insight in CO2 sources and sinks and the atmospheric mixing.
Cryptocurrencies are a good way of exchanging tokens, but just being able to exchange tokens doesn't mean that you've exchanged something of value
As long as other people are willing to trade items or work of value for these tokens, it would be reasonable for me to also attach a value to these tokens. For example: assuming current exchange rate of about $600 for a bitcoin. Let's say you loaned a friend $400, and he's offering to pay you back with 1 bitcoin. Would you accept it, knowing that you can probably find someone to pay you more than $500 for it ? If so, it has value to you.
Yes, but the total amount of gold in electrical contacts is small, and the industrial use alone does not warrant the high price.
Or we can use both, and choose whichever is the most convenient at the time. A few weeks ago I ordered something from a Chinese producer, and made payment in bitcoin. Within a minute, the producer could see the transfer to his wallet, and could start the production run. The other options were to use paypal, and pay an extra fee, or to use an international wire transfer, adding several days of extra delay.
Example: The earth crust contains 5% iron. So, when you're talking about producing steel, the issue is not the availability of the raw materials. The problem of producing steel is purely the amount of energy you have to put in, to convert the raw materials into a finished end product.Therefore it is a completely honest representation to look at the amount of energy required to produce the steel for the wind turbine, and see how long the wind turbine needs to be operated before it has produced that much.
Focusing through windows is already problematic, so the laser likely won't make it worse.
and if human intelligence and consciousness arise from brain activity, or emerge in other ways
If Quantum Field Theory is correct, there is no other way. And with the LHC performing 100 million collisions per second, every single one matching with QFT predictions, there's not much room left for big errors. There's only room for tiny adjustments whose effects would be too small to notice in daily life.
So, looking at your first graph, and seeing that the temperature went from that one blue line to the next in just 100 years, doesn't really leave the impression that there's nothing special going on. If it continues like this for another 100 years, it'll be the highest point in this graph.
If we don't reduce dependency on fossil fuels soon, the agrarian society will be here even quicker.
It REALLY depends on what you do to reduce CO2. Some ways of reducing CO2 will actually increase pollution.
Well, don't use those then.
The people you call "climate scientists" already form a very diverse group from lots of different backgrounds. Some dude digging up ice cores has a completely different expertise than somebody else checking out fossil leaves, or somebody update a climate model. And none of them have vested interests in the AGW theory. Plenty of them aren't even researching AGW.
Please show your proof that "people have been caught manipulating and flat-out lying".
That's only a handful of people. Where's the real list ?
Actually, deniers usually go like this: Climate isn't changing (there's a pause!). Even if the climate is changing, it's not caused by CO2 (it's the sun!). Even if CO2 causes climate change, humans didn't produce it. Even if humans have caused it, the effect isn't bad (CO2 is good for plants!). Even if the effect is bad, it's not catastrophic (I like it a bit warmer where I live). Even if the effect is catastrophic, there's nothing we can do about it.
CO2 is not smog, but reducing CO2 production will most likely also reduce smog.
They are not denying that climate has changed.
Nice straw man fallacy you've got there.