Picture the Earth in a glacial period. At this time most of the landmass is covered in ice. This prevents nutrients from being eroded and washed into the sea by rivers. This in turn causes phytoplankton populations to decline. As we know, phytoplankton are a major CO2 sink. The small plankton population results in rising CO2 levels, thus increasing temperature.
Melting ensues.
Now picture the Earth in an interglacial period. Most of the landmass is open to the elements. Rivers freely wash nutrients into the sea, and cause phytoplankton populations to boom. The plankton absorb CO2, cooling the Earth.
Freezing ensues...
Maybe consensus was too strong a word, but my point is that CO2 is the only one of these variables that has such strong correlation with climate change, and has siginificant forcings on global climate.
You mention the solar constant which does have an effect on climate, but on a timescale of billions of years. These changes are much to gradual to account for current changes.
Increased greenhouse effect? What do you mean here, other than increased concentration of greenhouse gasses?
Determining effects of the albedo on global climate is quite complex, as I am sure you know, as many factors can both warm or cool the Earth. For example, human land use usually has a cooling effect, whereas the melting of the ice caps as part of this feedback loop would have a warming.
We are witnessing an unprecedented spike in global temperatures *and* CO2 concetrations. The natural carbon cycle has been short circuited by the burning of fossil fuels. This does not prove caussation of course, but the evidence is more substantial than in other arguments.
Just because H2O is the most siginificant greenhouse gas does not mean that changing the concentration of the others won't have significant impacts. We are beginning to see changes already. Are you ignoring overwhelming scientific consensus, or do you have new and reliable information that nobody is yet privy to?
First off, the cows only increase methane concentrations, which is just one of the greenhouse gasses. Although a very potent greenhouse gas, it does not contribute as much to global warming compared to CO2, because CO2 emissions greatly eclipse those of methane.
Secondly, this article makes it seem like the cows are to blame, when the only reason there are so many of them out there releasing gas is due to human farming practices.
It seems to me that modern news outlets are far too obsessed with presenting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Sometimes information doesn't have to be presented with a neat and comprehensive list of counter arguments.
>>Incidentally, literacy rates in this country peaked prior to the introduction of public education.
Do you have a source for this? Not nitpicking, just curious.
I gave OpenOffice.org a try recently and noticed that it anticipates what word you are typing and can auto-complete it for you, much as the address bar in IE does. Surprisingly, this didn't irritate me, and I found myself pumping out sentences a lot faster just by hitting Enter to finish up words. It later dawned on me that I ended up using the suggested words quite frequently, just because it was easy and efficient to do so. So at the end, whose words were they, mine or the machine's?
Thanks for pointing out the original witty mind behind that quote. I find that Tom Waits vocals are an aquired taste, much like Bob Dylans. Besides, his early stuff isn't raspy at all.
Welcome to slashdot, a seething cesspool of partisan bickering and junk science. Run firefox, preferably on a *nix system, bash Microsoft at every possible moment, praise Apple, and learn trendy catchphrases about Russia, Profit! and Lawyers. Mileage may vary.
At the grand old age of 88, I believe that I have finally discovered what is missing from the lives of the 44-53 year old crowd...
For Example:
1. Why do those youngsters need a plethora of color/stereo sound/milk and sugar options on every bloody 8mm reel that comes out?
2. What is this need to constantly re-record the same songs over and over? What usually ends up happening is some singer/songwriter loses steam and uses a song written by a peer as to avoid any work in writing his own material.
3. I agree here.
4. Extreme saggy pants have been out for quite some time now.
Rising ocean levels are the only downside?
Desertification, dying coral reefs, water shortages, permanently altered ecosystems, halting of thermohaline circulation, ozone depletion.. just to pull a few off the top of my head.
For the inquiring minds out there, the population equation refered to is I=PAT, where I= influence on the environment, P= population, A=affluence, and T=technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Try this on for size:
Picture the Earth in a glacial period. At this time most of the landmass is covered in ice. This prevents nutrients from being eroded and washed into the sea by rivers. This in turn causes phytoplankton populations to decline. As we know, phytoplankton are a major CO2 sink. The small plankton population results in rising CO2 levels, thus increasing temperature.
Melting ensues.
Now picture the Earth in an interglacial period. Most of the landmass is open to the elements. Rivers freely wash nutrients into the sea, and cause phytoplankton populations to boom. The plankton absorb CO2, cooling the Earth.
Freezing ensues...
Maybe consensus was too strong a word, but my point is that CO2 is the only one of these variables that has such strong correlation with climate change, and has siginificant forcings on global climate.
You mention the solar constant which does have an effect on climate, but on a timescale of billions of years. These changes are much to gradual to account for current changes.
Increased greenhouse effect? What do you mean here, other than increased concentration of greenhouse gasses?
Determining effects of the albedo on global climate is quite complex, as I am sure you know, as many factors can both warm or cool the Earth. For example, human land use usually has a cooling effect, whereas the melting of the ice caps as part of this feedback loop would have a warming.
We are witnessing an unprecedented spike in global temperatures *and* CO2 concetrations. The natural carbon cycle has been short circuited by the burning of fossil fuels. This does not prove caussation of course, but the evidence is more substantial than in other arguments.
Just because H2O is the most siginificant greenhouse gas does not mean that changing the concentration of the others won't have significant impacts. We are beginning to see changes already. Are you ignoring overwhelming scientific consensus, or do you have new and reliable information that nobody is yet privy to?
True, but H2O is not anthropogenic.
First off, the cows only increase methane concentrations, which is just one of the greenhouse gasses. Although a very potent greenhouse gas, it does not contribute as much to global warming compared to CO2, because CO2 emissions greatly eclipse those of methane.
Secondly, this article makes it seem like the cows are to blame, when the only reason there are so many of them out there releasing gas is due to human farming practices.
>>Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day.
What I meant by "fair and balanced" was more the *illusion* of balanced reporting, as opposed to actual objective reporting.
It seems to me that modern news outlets are far too obsessed with presenting a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Sometimes information doesn't have to be presented with a neat and comprehensive list of counter arguments.
>>Incidentally, literacy rates in this country peaked prior to the introduction of public education.
Do you have a source for this? Not nitpicking, just curious.
I'd rather vote for Jack Kerouac.
I gave OpenOffice.org a try recently and noticed that it anticipates what word you are typing and can auto-complete it for you, much as the address bar in IE does. Surprisingly, this didn't irritate me, and I found myself pumping out sentences a lot faster just by hitting Enter to finish up words. It later dawned on me that I ended up using the suggested words quite frequently, just because it was easy and efficient to do so. So at the end, whose words were they, mine or the machine's?
Here you go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4272418.stm
I, for one, welcome our new fried chicken overlords.
As far as I know it didn't say anything. Put down the pipe, my friend.
[X] I am willing to test mankinds new potent pain killer.
I have.. migraines... on occasion...
"If crime-fighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"
-Carlin
Perhaps the mice stopped running into walls?
Thanks for pointing out the original witty mind behind that quote. I find that Tom Waits vocals are an aquired taste, much like Bob Dylans. Besides, his early stuff isn't raspy at all.
Welcome to slashdot, a seething cesspool of partisan bickering and junk science. Run firefox, preferably on a *nix system, bash Microsoft at every possible moment, praise Apple, and learn trendy catchphrases about Russia, Profit! and Lawyers. Mileage may vary.
Que best selling Michael Crichton thriller. Movie in '08.
"How many times have we all tried to use the phones backlit display as a flashlight?" Almost every single day. I kid you not.
At the grand old age of 88, I believe that I have finally discovered what is missing from the lives of the 44-53 year old crowd... For Example: 1. Why do those youngsters need a plethora of color/stereo sound/milk and sugar options on every bloody 8mm reel that comes out? 2. What is this need to constantly re-record the same songs over and over? What usually ends up happening is some singer/songwriter loses steam and uses a song written by a peer as to avoid any work in writing his own material. 3. I agree here. 4. Extreme saggy pants have been out for quite some time now.
Rising ocean levels are the only downside? Desertification, dying coral reefs, water shortages, permanently altered ecosystems, halting of thermohaline circulation, ozone depletion.. just to pull a few off the top of my head.
"Do you get better treatment at Wal-Mart for walking out with products that you ignored to pay for? " Yes, actually. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tJdY_srkUs
For the inquiring minds out there, the population equation refered to is I=PAT, where I= influence on the environment, P= population, A=affluence, and T=technology.
Blame Apple's marketing and ad campaigns over the past two decades, the bulk of which has been childish Windows/PC bashing.