"And the significance of this is... what? Actually very little because atmospheric carbon dioxide is a trivial bit-player on the global climate stage. If nothing has interfered to reduce its effect, the 100 ppmv increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased the global mean temperature by about 0.15 C, another 200 ppmv could push that up to a total net warming of about 0.2 C.
Update: Question for the day -- if atmospheric carbon dioxide is as strong a determinant of planetary temperature as is frequently alleged, why isn't the world at its warmest in April and coolest in August when the annual peak and trough in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels occur? The annual northern hemisphere spring/summer growing season sees a draw down of 4-5 ppmv in the atmospheric carbon resource yet global temperature peaks when atmospheric carbon dioxide is lowest and is a little below average when CO2 is highest. Something wrong here, surely. End update. "
Consider this also, it may be that increasing temperatures FROM SOME OTHER CAUSE (the sun????) lead to more plant growth which leads to more CO2 emissions.
I looked and noticed that in less than 2 years, Bill Gates has unloaded 234.5 million shares or nearly 25% of his total holdings. Does anybody know why he's doing this? Is it to fund his foundation? Is he diversifying? I find it difficult to believe he's spending the proceeds. Even he would find it tough to spend over 5 billion dollars in two years.
I'm not really sure what your point is. If you're saying (with sarcasm) that the sarcasm tag idea isn't new, I agree. Lot's of people put one in their comments to make it obvious that they're being sarcastic. My point was, do we really have to do it everytime? The g-grandparent post was obviously clueless and I was just lamenting that fact. The bottom line is, I guess, before you post trying to correct/inform a poster, read over what you're commenting on a couple of times, just to make sure the poster's not being sarcastic. A sarcasm tag kinda kills the mood.
On the other hand, if you're really saying the tag is a good idea, see the previous sentence. But, hey, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for some people.
I've got to reply to this because the other 3 replies just don't seem to get it. He's being sarcastic. Do we all really need to put a tag in our posts so the clueless can see it? Unpossible knows it's a bad idea. Hint: the last part, "...the thought of a next of kin selling something they DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN is just HORRIBLE." should give you a clue.
Excellent comment! As someone who has had to endure polygraph examinations, I can tell you that you are right on with your "several truths" argument. Sure, if someone asks you if you killed someone the answer is pretty cut and dried and the truth is simple, but most often the questions aren't worded that way. When you are asked a question, first you have to figure out what the person wants/means, then you have to figure out what information you wish to convey with your answer. For some people, in my experience the most direct and brusque individuals (usually seen as jerks), this isn't hard at all. For others, like myself, this sometimes is difficult and leads to problems on polygraph exams.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, you're right, dunce cap for the day, plants absorb CO2 (during the day, anyway).
http://www.junkscience.com/
Consider this also, it may be that increasing temperatures FROM SOME OTHER CAUSE (the sun????) lead to more plant growth which leads to more CO2 emissions.
I looked and noticed that in less than 2 years, Bill Gates has unloaded 234.5 million shares or nearly 25% of his total holdings. Does anybody know why he's doing this? Is it to fund his foundation? Is he diversifying? I find it difficult to believe he's spending the proceeds. Even he would find it tough to spend over 5 billion dollars in two years.
I'm not really sure what your point is. If you're saying (with sarcasm) that the sarcasm tag idea isn't new, I agree. Lot's of people put one in their comments to make it obvious that they're being sarcastic. My point was, do we really have to do it everytime? The g-grandparent post was obviously clueless and I was just lamenting that fact. The bottom line is, I guess, before you post trying to correct/inform a poster, read over what you're commenting on a couple of times, just to make sure the poster's not being sarcastic. A sarcasm tag kinda kills the mood. On the other hand, if you're really saying the tag is a good idea, see the previous sentence. But, hey, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for some people.
I've got to reply to this because the other 3 replies just don't seem to get it. He's being sarcastic. Do we all really need to put a tag in our posts so the clueless can see it? Unpossible knows it's a bad idea. Hint: the last part, "...the thought of a next of kin selling something they DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN is just HORRIBLE." should give you a clue.
Excellent comment! As someone who has had to endure polygraph examinations, I can tell you that you are right on with your "several truths" argument. Sure, if someone asks you if you killed someone the answer is pretty cut and dried and the truth is simple, but most often the questions aren't worded that way. When you are asked a question, first you have to figure out what the person wants/means, then you have to figure out what information you wish to convey with your answer. For some people, in my experience the most direct and brusque individuals (usually seen as jerks), this isn't hard at all. For others, like myself, this sometimes is difficult and leads to problems on polygraph exams.