Who cares? The total forcing from CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is less than the daily variance in forcing from water vapor.
The REAL effect from CO2 is negligible once you have an atmosphere that can support water vapor (an methane).
And of course, the advantage to using water vapor to moderate the atmosphere is exactly that you can change the concentration quickly.
Oh, you mean 98% of people who's entire careers would disappear in an instant if GW was found to be false believe in it? The same 98% who's grant funding is predicated on AGW? No bias there.
If these guys are so confident, then why can't I get an answer as to why a tiny amount of CO2 (the sum total of which added by human activity since the industrial revolution) is more important than water in the atmosphere, which varies by so much on a day-to-day basis that the total forcing from CO2 is lost in the noise? All I ever get when I ask that question is a bunch of boos, hisses, attacks, and sometimes appeals to authority (you know, like this entire thread).
If 98% of all dealership mechanics told you that you needed to buy a new car, but you are poor and highly indebted, would you follow their advice? NO. Better to take the bus than to burden yourself with more debt.
I don't say that, because I am a scientist. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a scientific theory, supported by predictive power over numerous experiments with a fucking model tells me that you are an anti-scientific retard, and that we can SAFELY ignore you.
I don't own a hummer, and I use a swamp cooler, not A/C. I also use solar power to run a small portion of my home, and have plans to go all the way soon. That doesn't change the fact that poor people around the world buy food with "Made in the USA" on it, and that your half baked ideas to cap carbon emissions will make that food much, much, MUCH more expensive, causing what will likely be the greatest human die off since the Black Death.
I have studied history, economics, and policy in Africa in detail. Much more so than you likely ever have. You toss around ad hominem like it's fucking candy in a parade while real people starve to death as a result of your countries' genocidal policies. Christ, it's sickening.
Also funny that you seem to think there was no such thing as a drought prior to "global warming". I thought you were mad at "deniers" for conflating weather and climate?
Yes, I also fight against the US war machine at pretty much every opportunity. I am fairly certain that every politician in the US adopts all policies based on how many brown people they can kill. I'm not sure which side is winning at this point.
Hmmm, so you are saying that environmental legislation only has an effect on high dollar luxury items, and leaves the cost of vital commodities alone?
What fantasy world are you living in? First off, not all poor people around the world are subsistence farmers. Second, even those that are have bad years where they have to buy food to survive (congrats, you just killed them on their first bad harvest). Thirdly, even places like Africa have complex economies with tradesmen, artisans, etc. Not everyone farms. But they all buy food. And when food is expensive, they go hungry. But at least they won't have to worry about sea levels rising a millimeter over the next decade, right?
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the hydrocarbon requirements of big agriculture which feeds the world, and how increases in fuel prices incited riots around the world starting in 2008, and lead to a great deal of misery until the oil bubble popped.
Subsistence farmers don't really care what you do. But not all the poor around the world are subsistence farmers, nor are the seasons always kind to them (regardless of whether there is climate change or not). Just because they don't use fuel directly doesn't mean that higher prices in the things that require fuel for production won't cause them to starve to death.
Of course they don't SAY it. But it is a bias that exists. It exists in all humans.
For example, ask yourself what North American Indians lived like for the several hundred years before the arrival of European colonists. Chances are you think that they were sedentary farming tribes in the East, nomads on the great plains, and sedentary village builders in the West. This was not the case (outside of the West). Rather, the east was a great culture that worked metal and had complex trade routes along the Mississippi. The tribes of the midwest didn't become nomads until the introduction of horses by the spanish.
You tell me how EXACTLY are we going to reduce carbon emissions without reducing our economic output. You know, the economic output that the poor depend on for their survival. People are ALREADY starving in Africa. What do you think is going to happen when the fuel used to grow the grains we send/sell to them quadruples in price? You don't think, and that's why your meddling in markets is deadly.
Not in the amounts we are talking about. Less than a ppt change. The total change in CO2 due to human activity falls within the noise from heat forcing from daily variations in water vapor.
Yes, because anyone who disagrees with the "scientific consensus" is anti-science.
If that statement doesn't strike you as anti-scientific in and of itself, then you are a member of a religions, not the scientific community.
Science is all about arguments. The fact that one side of this argument has resorted to appeal to authority (rather than logic or empiricism) on so many occasions pretty much shows that they aren't scientists.
CFC's were demonstrably harming the ozone layer, and were not vital to continued human life on this planet. CO2 only "forces" climate change in esoteric computer programs that seem to output the same hockey stick regardless of the inputs even though it doesn't make any sense from a physical chemistry standpoint. CO2 only forces warming up until a point after which water takes over. Additional CO2 input after the introduction of water vapor into the atmosphere actually reduces the effect of the water (very, very slightly) since it is a much lesser greenhouse gas than water, in fact it is BELOW THE AVERAGE of all other gases in the atmosphere.
The fact is that climate is a big, complicated thing that changes all on its own. AGW people have a sort of normalcy bias whereby they look at the last X number of years since we have been taking measurements and automatically assume that that is the "correct" climate, and that any variance from that must be because of something we have changed, rather than the result of natural climate cycles. They then take the crazy position that we need to put chains around the neck of the global economy and starve a bunch of poor people around the world by increasing prices (the exact point of tradable carbon credits and caps).
It is neither overwhelmingly verified nor agreed upon. Even if it was, so was terracentrism.
And what is uncomfortable and inconvenient for Americans is deadly for poor people around the world. I guess you forgot that not everyone is as rich as you are, or that the primary purpose of the economy is to ensure that everyone's desires are met, most especially the stringent desire to live. But you would ignore that based on some mumbo-jumbo about how the Earth is going to do SOMETHING to make things somehow worse, ignoring the fact that the "solution" is far, far worse than the "problem".
So blind, egotistical self righteousness trumps brown people getting enough food to eat. Yeah, that'll work.
AGW folks remind me of the old blood cultists from South America. They did nothing but spread fear among the people, telling them that if the Gods didn't have human hearts to eat and blood to drink that there would be no rain, that the sun wouldn't rise the next day, etc. This is very nearly the exact same thing. A privileged class of priests/climate scientists listen to the ramblings of an oracle and then interpret it to say whatever they want to say. We've been told forever that unless we stop our "sinful ways" we will "anger the gods" who will in turn drag us to "hell" by heating up our world. Indeed, the models they created to interpret the words of the "Oracle" were slanted so severely that no matter what data was inputted, a hockey stick graph was the output.
They point to rising temperatures, but ignore the fact that this type of temperature rise has happened many times before, and generally abates when we reach temperatures somewhat above current, before descending into the next ice age. But I guess it is easier to suggest a linear trend over this length of time than it was back in the days of the blood cult, who would wait until late at night and claim that if they didn't sacrifice someone, that the sun wouldn't come back.
But hey, let's all plunge ourselves into eternal poverty to satisfy the egos of a few climate cultists. Nevermind that CO2 production is inversely correlated with poverty and starvation, and that by instituting all these laws and regulations to "stop" climate change they will instead impoverish nations and starve vast numbers of poor people. Just new sacrifices for the blood cult, I guess. At least the pre-Columbian cultures had the decency to cut their hearts out, rather than starving their victims to death.
Those fish aren't actually inedible. The mercury in 99% of saltwater fish is in the form of a non-toxic insoluble salt (it combines with selenium). This is why fish-eating nations like Japan aren't all dead of Mercury poisoning, and don't even exhibit the symptoms of low level chronic poisoning.
Mercury on the land is much, MUCH more toxic and dangerous.
Sorry to say we do in fact live in Bizzarro world. Large corporations love regulations because it crowds out new competition. They love social programs because they often get paid that way (witness JPMorgan administering SNAP nationwide).
In general, everything you think you know about human action is wrong. Natural reactions are always the wrong ones (getting angry when others are angry at you, lying to cover mistakes, etc). The only way to clearly perceive the world is to step back and study some philosophy. State some premises and derive your views from those. Make damn sure they aren't false. It's tough, but it worked for me. I did it and saw the truth of what is going on in the world, and have made very large amounts of money with very little risk because of it.
Not exactly. Bitcoins buy more now than they used to. Why? Because the user base has expanded. Monetary base can expand rapidly without hyperinflation IF the number of users of said currency is increasing. In this case, it is best to look at the average amount of bitcoins per bitcoin owner. In the case of hyperinflation in national currencies, the number of users of said currencies were either static or falling rapidly (as users fled the falling currency and began using other alternatives like gold backed dollars in Weimar, or gold in Zimbabwe).
But yes, we will see hyperinflation in the US, and likely around the world as competitive devaluation proceeds. Look to gold and commodities to see the effects of this truly genocidal policy.
Who cares if a currency is hoarded? That is the point of currency--to allow people to save as much as they like without taking real goods out of the economy and sitting on them.
All sitting on currency does is drive down prices, which sets up an equilibrium that makes people spend (ie "look how cheap that is! I'm going to use some of my savings to buy that and let it improve my life"). The currency itself is worthless. All it is is a placeholder, telling society how much you have contributed. What is IMPORTANT is the good or service you fed into the economy to get your currency. The economy will either consume the fruits of your labor immediately, squandering them (low interest rate environment), or it will invest them in capital intensive projects with a high likelihood of payoff (high interest rate environment), or somewhere between, based on society's preference. Of course, when you have an arbitrary authority like a central bank setting interest rates (pushing on a string), things go AWRY. As we have seen.
I was too young for these when they went out of business, but now I want some! This would be a great substitute for home chemistry kits which are now "too dangerous" for kids. A great tool for getting kids interested in science.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? The total forcing from CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is less than the daily variance in forcing from water vapor.
The REAL effect from CO2 is negligible once you have an atmosphere that can support water vapor (an methane).
And of course, the advantage to using water vapor to moderate the atmosphere is exactly that you can change the concentration quickly.
Oh, you mean 98% of people who's entire careers would disappear in an instant if GW was found to be false believe in it? The same 98% who's grant funding is predicated on AGW? No bias there.
If these guys are so confident, then why can't I get an answer as to why a tiny amount of CO2 (the sum total of which added by human activity since the industrial revolution) is more important than water in the atmosphere, which varies by so much on a day-to-day basis that the total forcing from CO2 is lost in the noise? All I ever get when I ask that question is a bunch of boos, hisses, attacks, and sometimes appeals to authority (you know, like this entire thread).
If 98% of all dealership mechanics told you that you needed to buy a new car, but you are poor and highly indebted, would you follow their advice? NO. Better to take the bus than to burden yourself with more debt.
I don't say that, because I am a scientist. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a scientific theory, supported by predictive power over numerous experiments with a fucking model tells me that you are an anti-scientific retard, and that we can SAFELY ignore you.
I don't own a hummer, and I use a swamp cooler, not A/C. I also use solar power to run a small portion of my home, and have plans to go all the way soon. That doesn't change the fact that poor people around the world buy food with "Made in the USA" on it, and that your half baked ideas to cap carbon emissions will make that food much, much, MUCH more expensive, causing what will likely be the greatest human die off since the Black Death.
I have studied history, economics, and policy in Africa in detail. Much more so than you likely ever have. You toss around ad hominem like it's fucking candy in a parade while real people starve to death as a result of your countries' genocidal policies. Christ, it's sickening.
Also funny that you seem to think there was no such thing as a drought prior to "global warming". I thought you were mad at "deniers" for conflating weather and climate?
Yes, I also fight against the US war machine at pretty much every opportunity. I am fairly certain that every politician in the US adopts all policies based on how many brown people they can kill. I'm not sure which side is winning at this point.
Hmmm, so you are saying that environmental legislation only has an effect on high dollar luxury items, and leaves the cost of vital commodities alone?
What fantasy world are you living in? First off, not all poor people around the world are subsistence farmers. Second, even those that are have bad years where they have to buy food to survive (congrats, you just killed them on their first bad harvest). Thirdly, even places like Africa have complex economies with tradesmen, artisans, etc. Not everyone farms. But they all buy food. And when food is expensive, they go hungry. But at least they won't have to worry about sea levels rising a millimeter over the next decade, right?
CO2 doesn't have enough effect to warm or cool the planet significantly. You are better off pumping water vapor or methane into the air.
Yeah, math is different when you have big numbers! That's what my politician told me when he wanted to run up more debt in my name, anyways.
Perhaps you should educate yourself on the hydrocarbon requirements of big agriculture which feeds the world, and how increases in fuel prices incited riots around the world starting in 2008, and lead to a great deal of misery until the oil bubble popped.
Subsistence farmers don't really care what you do. But not all the poor around the world are subsistence farmers, nor are the seasons always kind to them (regardless of whether there is climate change or not). Just because they don't use fuel directly doesn't mean that higher prices in the things that require fuel for production won't cause them to starve to death.
You're right. We should sacrifice some more poor people to the weather gods so maybe they will stop raining down their wrath upon us!
Of course they don't SAY it. But it is a bias that exists. It exists in all humans.
For example, ask yourself what North American Indians lived like for the several hundred years before the arrival of European colonists. Chances are you think that they were sedentary farming tribes in the East, nomads on the great plains, and sedentary village builders in the West. This was not the case (outside of the West). Rather, the east was a great culture that worked metal and had complex trade routes along the Mississippi. The tribes of the midwest didn't become nomads until the introduction of horses by the spanish.
You tell me how EXACTLY are we going to reduce carbon emissions without reducing our economic output. You know, the economic output that the poor depend on for their survival. People are ALREADY starving in Africa. What do you think is going to happen when the fuel used to grow the grains we send/sell to them quadruples in price? You don't think, and that's why your meddling in markets is deadly.
Not in the amounts we are talking about. Less than a ppt change. The total change in CO2 due to human activity falls within the noise from heat forcing from daily variations in water vapor.
Yes, because anyone who disagrees with the "scientific consensus" is anti-science.
If that statement doesn't strike you as anti-scientific in and of itself, then you are a member of a religions, not the scientific community.
Science is all about arguments. The fact that one side of this argument has resorted to appeal to authority (rather than logic or empiricism) on so many occasions pretty much shows that they aren't scientists.
CFC's were demonstrably harming the ozone layer, and were not vital to continued human life on this planet. CO2 only "forces" climate change in esoteric computer programs that seem to output the same hockey stick regardless of the inputs even though it doesn't make any sense from a physical chemistry standpoint. CO2 only forces warming up until a point after which water takes over. Additional CO2 input after the introduction of water vapor into the atmosphere actually reduces the effect of the water (very, very slightly) since it is a much lesser greenhouse gas than water, in fact it is BELOW THE AVERAGE of all other gases in the atmosphere.
The fact is that climate is a big, complicated thing that changes all on its own. AGW people have a sort of normalcy bias whereby they look at the last X number of years since we have been taking measurements and automatically assume that that is the "correct" climate, and that any variance from that must be because of something we have changed, rather than the result of natural climate cycles. They then take the crazy position that we need to put chains around the neck of the global economy and starve a bunch of poor people around the world by increasing prices (the exact point of tradable carbon credits and caps).
It is neither overwhelmingly verified nor agreed upon. Even if it was, so was terracentrism.
And what is uncomfortable and inconvenient for Americans is deadly for poor people around the world. I guess you forgot that not everyone is as rich as you are, or that the primary purpose of the economy is to ensure that everyone's desires are met, most especially the stringent desire to live. But you would ignore that based on some mumbo-jumbo about how the Earth is going to do SOMETHING to make things somehow worse, ignoring the fact that the "solution" is far, far worse than the "problem".
So blind, egotistical self righteousness trumps brown people getting enough food to eat. Yeah, that'll work.
Science is science?
AGW folks remind me of the old blood cultists from South America. They did nothing but spread fear among the people, telling them that if the Gods didn't have human hearts to eat and blood to drink that there would be no rain, that the sun wouldn't rise the next day, etc. This is very nearly the exact same thing. A privileged class of priests/climate scientists listen to the ramblings of an oracle and then interpret it to say whatever they want to say. We've been told forever that unless we stop our "sinful ways" we will "anger the gods" who will in turn drag us to "hell" by heating up our world. Indeed, the models they created to interpret the words of the "Oracle" were slanted so severely that no matter what data was inputted, a hockey stick graph was the output.
They point to rising temperatures, but ignore the fact that this type of temperature rise has happened many times before, and generally abates when we reach temperatures somewhat above current, before descending into the next ice age. But I guess it is easier to suggest a linear trend over this length of time than it was back in the days of the blood cult, who would wait until late at night and claim that if they didn't sacrifice someone, that the sun wouldn't come back.
But hey, let's all plunge ourselves into eternal poverty to satisfy the egos of a few climate cultists. Nevermind that CO2 production is inversely correlated with poverty and starvation, and that by instituting all these laws and regulations to "stop" climate change they will instead impoverish nations and starve vast numbers of poor people. Just new sacrifices for the blood cult, I guess. At least the pre-Columbian cultures had the decency to cut their hearts out, rather than starving their victims to death.
Those fish aren't actually inedible. The mercury in 99% of saltwater fish is in the form of a non-toxic insoluble salt (it combines with selenium). This is why fish-eating nations like Japan aren't all dead of Mercury poisoning, and don't even exhibit the symptoms of low level chronic poisoning. Mercury on the land is much, MUCH more toxic and dangerous.
You don't ask how troll science works.
Sorry to say we do in fact live in Bizzarro world. Large corporations love regulations because it crowds out new competition. They love social programs because they often get paid that way (witness JPMorgan administering SNAP nationwide).
In general, everything you think you know about human action is wrong. Natural reactions are always the wrong ones (getting angry when others are angry at you, lying to cover mistakes, etc). The only way to clearly perceive the world is to step back and study some philosophy. State some premises and derive your views from those. Make damn sure they aren't false. It's tough, but it worked for me. I did it and saw the truth of what is going on in the world, and have made very large amounts of money with very little risk because of it.
Not exactly. Bitcoins buy more now than they used to. Why? Because the user base has expanded. Monetary base can expand rapidly without hyperinflation IF the number of users of said currency is increasing. In this case, it is best to look at the average amount of bitcoins per bitcoin owner. In the case of hyperinflation in national currencies, the number of users of said currencies were either static or falling rapidly (as users fled the falling currency and began using other alternatives like gold backed dollars in Weimar, or gold in Zimbabwe).
But yes, we will see hyperinflation in the US, and likely around the world as competitive devaluation proceeds. Look to gold and commodities to see the effects of this truly genocidal policy.
Who cares if a currency is hoarded? That is the point of currency--to allow people to save as much as they like without taking real goods out of the economy and sitting on them.
All sitting on currency does is drive down prices, which sets up an equilibrium that makes people spend (ie "look how cheap that is! I'm going to use some of my savings to buy that and let it improve my life"). The currency itself is worthless. All it is is a placeholder, telling society how much you have contributed. What is IMPORTANT is the good or service you fed into the economy to get your currency. The economy will either consume the fruits of your labor immediately, squandering them (low interest rate environment), or it will invest them in capital intensive projects with a high likelihood of payoff (high interest rate environment), or somewhere between, based on society's preference. Of course, when you have an arbitrary authority like a central bank setting interest rates (pushing on a string), things go AWRY. As we have seen.
SHHHHHHHHHHHH.
I was too young for these when they went out of business, but now I want some! This would be a great substitute for home chemistry kits which are now "too dangerous" for kids. A great tool for getting kids interested in science.
Right, which is why you would have to use a superconductor rather than opposing magnets. Hence the liquid nitrogen temperatures.
You would have to wear some pretty thick shoes to deal with the liquid nitrogen temperatures too.