Not really. That's not how greenhouse gasses work. They trap incoming heat by preventing it from re-radiating.
...which is exactly how a Thermos keeps things warm (with the exception that a thermos works by reflection, while the greenhouse effect works by absorption and reradiation). The metaphor "we live in a thermos" has some accuracy to it.
The net heat input from fossil fuel use over the entire planet is down in the noise level compared to incoming solar energy.
Greenhouse warming isn't due to heat produced directly from fossil fuels, it's due to the greenhouse effect produced from the carbon dioxide. You're right that the natural greenhouse effect is larger than the component due to human-produced greenhouse gases-- about twenty times larger; without the greenhouse effect, Earth is 255 K. Whether that means the human contribution "in the noise" depends on what you mean by "in the noise." It turns out we've adapted to the planet the way it currently is, with ocean levels the way they currently are, and ice caps present at both poles. A few degrees of greenhouse warming might be "in the noise", you say, compared to the 33 degrees of natural warming, but it still can have large effect on us.
This is why the no-science public needs to chill out, STFU and quit getting whipped into a frenzy by people trying to leverage AGW for political gains. We understand the basic principles, but are still far away from useful predictive models that could be used to evaluate the impact of changes in energy policies.
Right now, I'm more worried about the people trying to attack science for political gains. The science of the greenhouse effect is well understood.
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you are apparently unaware that sarcasm is hard to distinguish on the internet, and becomes completely invisible against the background on slashdot comments.
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days
To be fair, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on engadget.
It was an internet reporter trying to make a quip and failing. To emphasize: no scientist ever said this.
and if you dare to point out that bullshit is bullshit you can be blacklisted as an "anti-science" nazi for failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
Right now your post pointing out that this is bullshit is moderated at "+5 Insightful," which is as high as it gets. (I would have moderated it "informative", but it is also insightful, I guess). So, no, when you correct wrong science with correct science, you apparently get modded up.
You might try that more: correcting wrong science with right science, that is.
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you. I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Here's the problem . . . . these CEOs who are so in love with A.I./ Robotics are slowly putting themselves out of business.
Once you've eliminated all the workers, and nobody has a job any more (no job = no money), who exactly is going to buy your company's products? Have you considered what happens when 90% of your customers no longer have any money?
This is the common problem of the difference between a individual benefit and a collective benefit.
If I, a businessman, get robots to do work because they are slightly cheaper and do a slightly better job than humans, I (or my business) individually get the benefit. Indeed, there is one fewer human being paid who can buy my company's products. But that's a collective loss, spread over all the businesses: the purchases of that specific employee aren't enough to make a difference to my specific company. It does hurt my company that a million people are put out of work by other CEOs making exactly the same decision to put robots in instead of humans-- but if I decided to hire workers instead of robots, it wouldn't change that. I am individually only a small part of the collective problem.
And if you think Universal Basic Income is the answer, where do think that money is going to come from? From the businesses and the wealthy? The same people who do everything they can to hide their money and avoid paying taxes? Good luck with that.
Yes, actually, that could work. You have taxes on the businesses to pay for basic income. Individually, none of the businesses want to pay taxes; but collectively they know that taxes keep them in business (by making people able to buy their products). So, they individually try to avoid taxes by whatever loopholes they can, but they don't organize collectively to oppose taxes, because those taxes keep their business in business.
...If on the other hand, instead of basic income, you had a basic-job as a right (the whole "communism" attempt of the last century), you might have a point (since not all jobs are created equal, allowing some variance for education is useful),...
Except you're missing the point. What is that "basic job" in a world where every possible job can be done better by a robot than by a human?
Are you proposing something like a WPA? Are you proposing "make work" jobs, where half the people dig holes in the ground, and the other half fill them in? Are you proposing that the government pay businesses to employ people instead of robots (...and then tax the businesses, to give get the money to give them to hire the people?)
The point of higher education is no longer to make people eligible for a job: it is to make them better human beings, and as a side benefit, to give them something to do for five, ten years to keep them off the job market because there aren't any jobs for them, while making them feel valuable in the process.
Because, anything you can do, AI can do better (sing along now): AI can do anything better than you.
The point on a mobile device is pretty dubious, actually. Who in the world would like to watch a move on the tiny little screen? I know that people these days think that's the way to watch, but really: it isn't.
I always bring my laptop on travel, so I'd watch movies on that, if they were available. But often the wifi you get at a hotel is pretty ratty.
Good. They finally figured out that not everybody has good internet connection, and even people that do have good connection don't have it everywhere-- sometimes they're travelling some place with poor connectivity.
I tried Netflix once: it was so annoying to wait when the video freezes at random intervals for 40 seconds as the loading wheel spins that I never looked at it again. Maybe I might give it a try--
--oh, wait, you can only download on mobile devices?!? Shit, what's the point?
Yeah, I'm at a loss as to why they think moves like this are sensible. The hard core of Apple fanboys who want all of their devices to have that same logo and to automagically work together
I don't care about the label, but I emphatically believe that devices I buy ought to "automatically" work together, and that this feature (which I call "functionality") is worth paying extra for.
Close. Homeopathy, actually, is based on the principle that if a malady has X symptoms, then a drug (or herb) that produces those symptoms, if taken in low dose, will be effective against that malady. That's homeopathy, in a nutshell.
They have added to that the additional theory that this remedy will get even more effective as the dose gets lower (and gone on to take that crackpot idea to absurd lengths). But the actual "homeo" part of homeopathy is the first statement: to cure a malady, use something that produces the same symptoms.
I'm sorry but tolerating hate is not tolerance, it's cowardice
It doesn't matter, the USA has enshrined freedom of speech in its Constitution.
Or is this freedom only good when liberal elites use it to their advantage ?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that a particular non-government platform has to tolerate your speech on their site.
here it is explained by Randall Munroe: xkcd (don't forget to read the mouseover text).
Free trade reduces the inequality between wealthier and poorer nations. Great if you're in the latter. Bad if you're not one of the few elites in the former who can make that benefit you. It's not a win-win for both sides
Actually, according to conventional economic theory, free trade benefits the people in both the richer and the poorer nations. The poorer nations get funds. The people in the richer nations get cheap goods.
So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?
The Democrats were in favor of it because of the liberal Hollywood money.
You say that as if "Democrats" were a single unit, and all Democrats all want the same thing.
From the very beginning, some Democrats were for TPP, and some were against it. This was a subject on which Democrats were split.
Which is somewhat understandable: the Trans Pacific Partnership is a very long and very complicated agreement (30 provisions plus 4 "annexes"). Whether you're for it or against it depends in large extent on which parts of it you're looking at.
What? Several black churches were burned to the ground and N** sprayed painted everywhere. The KKK's brand of racism is alive and well.
You know, it's quite a coincidence that these attacks only occur during Presidential elections and only when Democrats are having a hard time 'motivating' black voters tiger to the polls and vote...
Except that burning down African-American churches is not something that only occurs during presidential elections. In fact, it happens all the time. We just notice it more during elections.
"Last year, for example, a man who identified with the sovereign citizen movement — which claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government — attacked a courthouse in Forsyth County, Ga., firing an assault rifle at police officers and trying to cover his approach with tear gas and smoke grenades. The suspect was killed by the police, who returned fire. In Nevada, anti-government militants reportedly walked up to and shot two police officers at a restaurant, then placed a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. An anti-government extremist in Pennsylvania was arrested on suspicion of shooting two state troopers, killing one of them, before leading authorities on a 48-day manhunt. A right-wing militant in Texas declared a “revolution” and was arrested on suspicion of attempting to rob an armored car in order to buy weapons and explosives and attack law enforcement...
"“The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”"
I have a question: why would you think a prostitute would do a better job on taxes than an accountant? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just hire a different accountant?
The Supreme court is the arbiter of whether it is a treaty or an executive agreement. If the Supreme Court rules it's not a treaty but an executive agreement: then it's an executive agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
and we keep adding heat
Not really. That's not how greenhouse gasses work. They trap incoming heat by preventing it from re-radiating.
...which is exactly how a Thermos keeps things warm (with the exception that a thermos works by reflection, while the greenhouse effect works by absorption and reradiation). The metaphor "we live in a thermos" has some accuracy to it.
The net heat input from fossil fuel use over the entire planet is down in the noise level compared to incoming solar energy.
Greenhouse warming isn't due to heat produced directly from fossil fuels, it's due to the greenhouse effect produced from the carbon dioxide. You're right that the natural greenhouse effect is larger than the component due to human-produced greenhouse gases-- about twenty times larger; without the greenhouse effect, Earth is 255 K. Whether that means the human contribution "in the noise" depends on what you mean by "in the noise." It turns out we've adapted to the planet the way it currently is, with ocean levels the way they currently are, and ice caps present at both poles. A few degrees of greenhouse warming might be "in the noise", you say, compared to the 33 degrees of natural warming, but it still can have large effect on us.
This is why the no-science public needs to chill out, STFU and quit getting whipped into a frenzy by people trying to leverage AGW for political gains. We understand the basic principles, but are still far away from useful predictive models that could be used to evaluate the impact of changes in energy policies.
Right now, I'm more worried about the people trying to attack science for political gains. The science of the greenhouse effect is well understood.
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you are apparently unaware that sarcasm is hard to distinguish on the internet, and becomes completely invisible against the background on slashdot comments.
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days
To be fair, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on engadget.
It was an internet reporter trying to make a quip and failing. To emphasize: no scientist ever said this.
and if you dare to point out that bullshit is bullshit you can be blacklisted as an "anti-science" nazi for failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
Right now your post pointing out that this is bullshit is moderated at "+5 Insightful," which is as high as it gets. (I would have moderated it "informative", but it is also insightful, I guess). So, no, when you correct wrong science with correct science, you apparently get modded up.
You might try that more: correcting wrong science with right science, that is.
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you . I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Stop it. Stick to facts-- the kind that are real.
Interesting comment, and even mathematically insightful. But that's not what the word "average" means.
Here's the problem . . . . these CEOs who are so in love with A.I./ Robotics are slowly putting themselves out of business.
Once you've eliminated all the workers, and nobody has a job any more (no job = no money), who exactly is going to buy your company's products? Have you considered what happens when 90% of your customers no longer have any money?
This is the common problem of the difference between a individual benefit and a collective benefit.
If I, a businessman, get robots to do work because they are slightly cheaper and do a slightly better job than humans, I (or my business) individually get the benefit. Indeed, there is one fewer human being paid who can buy my company's products. But that's a collective loss, spread over all the businesses: the purchases of that specific employee aren't enough to make a difference to my specific company. It does hurt my company that a million people are put out of work by other CEOs making exactly the same decision to put robots in instead of humans-- but if I decided to hire workers instead of robots, it wouldn't change that. I am individually only a small part of the collective problem.
And if you think Universal Basic Income is the answer, where do think that money is going to come from? From the businesses and the wealthy? The same people who do everything they can to hide their money and avoid paying taxes? Good luck with that.
Yes, actually, that could work. You have taxes on the businesses to pay for basic income. Individually, none of the businesses want to pay taxes; but collectively they know that taxes keep them in business (by making people able to buy their products). So, they individually try to avoid taxes by whatever loopholes they can, but they don't organize collectively to oppose taxes, because those taxes keep their business in business.
...If on the other hand, instead of basic income, you had a basic-job as a right (the whole "communism" attempt of the last century), you might have a point (since not all jobs are created equal, allowing some variance for education is useful), ...
Except you're missing the point. What is that "basic job" in a world where every possible job can be done better by a robot than by a human?
Are you proposing something like a WPA? Are you proposing "make work" jobs, where half the people dig holes in the ground, and the other half fill them in? Are you proposing that the government pay businesses to employ people instead of robots (...and then tax the businesses, to give get the money to give them to hire the people?)
The point of higher education is no longer to make people eligible for a job: it is to make them better human beings, and as a side benefit, to give them something to do for five, ten years to keep them off the job market because there aren't any jobs for them, while making them feel valuable in the process.
Because, anything you can do, AI can do better (sing along now): AI can do anything better than you.
By definition, half the people minus one are below average intelligence.
Nope. By definition, half the people minus one are below median intelligence.
Really, people need to chill out. When absolutely everything gets you offended, really your offendedness is meaningless.
I always bring my laptop on travel, so I'd watch movies on that, if they were available. But often the wifi you get at a hotel is pretty ratty.
Good. They finally figured out that not everybody has good internet connection, and even people that do have good connection don't have it everywhere-- sometimes they're travelling some place with poor connectivity.
I tried Netflix once: it was so annoying to wait when the video freezes at random intervals for 40 seconds as the loading wheel spins that I never looked at it again. Maybe I might give it a try--
--oh, wait, you can only download on mobile devices?!? Shit, what's the point?
Yeah, I'm at a loss as to why they think moves like this are sensible. The hard core of Apple fanboys who want all of their devices to have that same logo and to automagically work together
I don't care about the label, but I emphatically believe that devices I buy ought to "automatically" work together, and that this feature (which I call "functionality") is worth paying extra for.
They have added to that the additional theory that this remedy will get even more effective as the dose gets lower (and gone on to take that crackpot idea to absurd lengths). But the actual "homeo" part of homeopathy is the first statement: to cure a malady, use something that produces the same symptoms.
And to a reliable source, not some right-wing wacko conspiracy site.
I'm sorry but tolerating hate is not tolerance, it's cowardice
It doesn't matter, the USA has enshrined freedom of speech in its Constitution. Or is this freedom only good when liberal elites use it to their advantage ?
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that a particular non-government platform has to tolerate your speech on their site.
here it is explained by Randall Munroe: xkcd
(don't forget to read the mouseover text).
It's not that he must be racist. It's just that there have been a very large overlap between racist people and outspoken Trump supporters.
An important point to remember. It's not true that Republicans are necessarily racists. It's just that racists are all Republicans.
Free trade reduces the inequality between wealthier and poorer nations. Great if you're in the latter. Bad if you're not one of the few elites in the former who can make that benefit you. It's not a win-win for both sides
Actually, according to conventional economic theory, free trade benefits the people in both the richer and the poorer nations. The poorer nations get funds. The people in the richer nations get cheap goods.
One man charged is not enough to sustain a statement "a majority".
"Free" trade only works when both trading partners are on equal status.
No. Sorry. Learn some actual economic theory. This is not correct.
So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?
The Democrats were in favor of it because of the liberal Hollywood money.
You say that as if "Democrats" were a single unit, and all Democrats all want the same thing.
From the very beginning, some Democrats were for TPP, and some were against it. This was a subject on which Democrats were split.
Which is somewhat understandable: the Trans Pacific Partnership is a very long and very complicated agreement (30 provisions plus 4 "annexes"). Whether you're for it or against it depends in large extent on which parts of it you're looking at.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text
You know, it's quite a coincidence that these attacks only occur during Presidential elections and only when Democrats are having a hard time 'motivating' black voters tiger to the polls and vote...
Except that burning down African-American churches is not something that only occurs during presidential elections. In fact, it happens all the time. We just notice it more during elections.
Here, for example are some stories from early 2015: http://www.theatlantic.com/nat...
and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
and https://www.splcenter.org/hate...
And yet the folks committing violent acts and mayhem in American cities are leftists.
Nope. Right and left. Crazies on both sides.
I haven't seen the KKK, the Neo Nazis, or the Skinheads doing this for the last 8 years whilst Obama has been President.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Look here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...
"Last year, for example, a man who identified with the sovereign citizen movement — which claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government — attacked a courthouse in Forsyth County, Ga., firing an assault rifle at police officers and trying to cover his approach with tear gas and smoke grenades. The suspect was killed by the police, who returned fire. In Nevada, anti-government militants reportedly walked up to and shot two police officers at a restaurant, then placed a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. An anti-government extremist in Pennsylvania was arrested on suspicion of shooting two state troopers, killing one of them, before leading authorities on a 48-day manhunt. A right-wing militant in Texas declared a “revolution” and was arrested on suspicion of attempting to rob an armored car in order to buy weapons and explosives and attack law enforcement...
"“The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”"
More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/01/why-racists-burn-black-churches/
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/vegas-cop-killers/two-cops-three-others-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/arson-churches-north-carolina-georgia/396881/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/03/500496061/fbi-investigating-burning-of-black-church-painted-with-vote-trump
I have a question: why would you think a prostitute would do a better job on taxes than an accountant? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just hire a different accountant?
Meh.
Yeah, it's really easy to just tag anybody who disagrees with you as "anti-humanist" and "faux-environmentalist" and "not actually environmentalists."
That really doesn't get anywhere, and certainly doesn't engage discussion or change anybody's mind, but I guess it makes you feel good.
That's the constitution.