Sulphur dioxide only has an extreme cooling effect in the upper atmosphere, where it forms nucleation centers for clouds to reflect sunlight without much absorption. In the lower atmosphere (ie where the pollution lingers) it does nothing but absorb heat and cause acid rain.
If it can absorb a photon, it is a greenhouse gas. N2 is a (very minor) greenhouse gas because it can absorb a photon on the N2 stretch. CO2 can absorb along 2 C=O stretches, making it a more major greenhouse gas (exactly 2x Nitrogen). H2O can absorb along two H-O stretches and a H-O-H twist. If you look at the IR spectrum of water, it overwhelms the signal of practically anything you can look at. This is why you must use a dry sample for IR spec. But CO2, as you noted, is a VERY minor component of the atmosphere. A
The thing is that while a given molecule of water doesn't stay aloft very long, it is replaced very quickly. If you really wanted to deal with global warming, you could require moisture traps on factories, and get an IMMEDIATE effect, rather than, you know, shutting down 90% of human productive capacity in pursuit of a Hail Mary against something that may or may not be a problem.
I thank you for your intelligent, non-dogmatic approach to this conversation.
Or are you saying the prophet of AGW is wrong? Or are you just broadcasting your own ignorance? Because heat capacity is the primary definition of radiation absorption. You absorb a high energy photon (light), and emit low energy photons (heat) across a specific spectrum (the basis of IR spectroscopy).
Uhh, no duh. What do you think heat capacity is? It is exactly that. And CO2 ain't shit compared to water, which fluctuates more than 100 times as much as the total rise in CO2 over the last hundred years on a monthly basis. That is, any possible effect from CO2 falls within the noise level of that change.
Yes, deride any who don't conform to your viewpoint while simultaneously shying away from answering their pertinent question that throws you entire worldview into question.
Maybe someone should get you a nice hat and call you the Climate Pope. Or you could explain what you mean. Without the derision. But I don't think you are capable of that.
Yes, excellent. Take a infinitesimally short time period viewed through the distorted prism of childhood memory and use that as a basis for confirming or denying climate theory.
You do realize that this is exactly what AGW people criticize in the climate deniers, right?
You know, it's funny. 40 years ago, prior to all this regulation, the average CEO made about ten times as much as the average worker in his company. Today, post regulation, the average CEO makes some 40+ times as much (it's rising so fast I can't keep up) as the average worker. This is American companies with American workers.
In other words, your post ignores not only cause and effect, but correlation as well. Total ignorance of reality. The fact is that the more regulations imposed by the government, the rich CEOs get, because the corporations own the government, and use those regulations to squelch competition. This drives new industry abroad.
But it's not the corporations who are to blame. Hate the game, not the player. More specifically, hate the system, and those who created it, and made the rules. This means Republicans and Democrats.
You want to fix this? Get rid of these two parties, and bring in a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. Don't settle for the choice between a turd burger and a shit sandwich.
"By contrast, it seems the scale difference between long-term and short-term climate trends is too complicated for some people to comprehend. "
The exact opposite is true too. Every time there is a heat wave, the AGW people come crawling out of the woodwork to claim victory.
And yes, I do see a contradiction. That is, idiots talking as if ten years of data mean anything in climate science. I also see idiots talking as if thirty years of data means anything in climate science. This is classic timeframe picking, and both sides are guilty of it. But hey, no questions allowed, right? You're either with us or you're against us! The Bush doctrine of climate science seems to be in full swing here.
Actually, I am a scientist. I am a chemist who does materials science work. I looked into this global warming business from a physical chemistry perspective, and have yet to receive an adequate answer as to why CO2 is supposed to cause warming, when the heat capacity is actually slightly lower than the average heat capacity of the atmosphere.
But hey, don't let real scientific skepticism keep you from burning heretics alive.
So eight years after claiming to have not knowingly receiving any money from the industry, he is being accused of having gotten a million dollars over ten years. FTFA, I can't find ANY actual grant funding that went in prior to 2003.
Further, clearly these people don't know much about scientific research. A million dollars in grant funding over ten years is 100K a year, barely enough to keep the damn lights on. If he didn't draw a salary off of it, maybe he could afford to pay for a graduate student as well. It's not like this money was being pumped directly into his pocket.
But hey, screw it. Even though climate scientists claim it is now too late to do anything, and that tens of trillions of dollars would have to be expended to have a "too little, too late" effect and despite the fact that simply saving the money would allow us to actually deal with the consequences of any possible warming, let's just throw money at the poorly defined problem until it goes away. After all, that has worked so well with everything else we have tried the strategy on.
Hmmm, compare nazi ideology to that PRACTICED (not preached) by both parties, and I think you will see that the argument you claim has failed is actually dead on accurate. Sure, we're not burning people in ovens, but we sure as hell have clamped down on pretty much every freedom that matters in the modern world. Look at the campaign contributions. Very little goes to Libertarian or even libertarian leaning candidates. It all goes to R or D.
And as for your argument that Standard Oil "centrally planned" the American economy, that is truly laughable. You apparently don't understand the meaning of the term "central planning". Standard Oil didn't have army or police forces to enforce the regulations they made on non-consenting parties. All they could do was "control" their own market by operating so efficiently that prices remained so low that no-one could compete. People bitch and whine all the time about how they bullied people out of business, but the thing is, if they were shutting so many people out of business, they would have created an untapped market for rail competitors.
Free market monopolies keep prices DOWN, not UP. The price of Kerosene was cut by 75% between the time they started gaining market share to the time they reached maximum market share. BTW, they never hit 100%. They maxed out around 90%. Any failure, and they would lose market share to the other ten percent. Just like Microsoft has to Apple for PCs, and to Linux for servers.
You point out FALSE facts. Sure these are facts, but they aren't true. "The sky is purple polkadotted" is a fact, but it isn't true. Similarly, I said "like some African nations", and you proceeded to list a bunch where that wasn't the case, and said that most weren't that way. But I didn't say "most", now did I? I said "some". And you claim that corporations would love smaller government, while the TRUE facts say otherwise. The corporations ALWAYS support the two parties of big government.
But hey, you refuse to see reality for what it is. Don't come crying to me when it all comes crashing down on your head, and on your watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Sulphur dioxide only has an extreme cooling effect in the upper atmosphere, where it forms nucleation centers for clouds to reflect sunlight without much absorption. In the lower atmosphere (ie where the pollution lingers) it does nothing but absorb heat and cause acid rain.
You take a a well reasoned and level headed approach to this subject. Kudos.
Isn't a "private cloud" just another word for "stored offsite".
.gov.uk got buzzworded into distributing more tax dollars for something they already had.
Sounds like some foolish
If it can absorb a photon, it is a greenhouse gas. N2 is a (very minor) greenhouse gas because it can absorb a photon on the N2 stretch. CO2 can absorb along 2 C=O stretches, making it a more major greenhouse gas (exactly 2x Nitrogen). H2O can absorb along two H-O stretches and a H-O-H twist. If you look at the IR spectrum of water, it overwhelms the signal of practically anything you can look at. This is why you must use a dry sample for IR spec. But CO2, as you noted, is a VERY minor component of the atmosphere. A
The thing is that while a given molecule of water doesn't stay aloft very long, it is replaced very quickly. If you really wanted to deal with global warming, you could require moisture traps on factories, and get an IMMEDIATE effect, rather than, you know, shutting down 90% of human productive capacity in pursuit of a Hail Mary against something that may or may not be a problem.
I thank you for your intelligent, non-dogmatic approach to this conversation.
Funny you should say that, because that is exactly what Al Gore says is the cause: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taViFH_6_Y
Or are you saying the prophet of AGW is wrong? Or are you just broadcasting your own ignorance? Because heat capacity is the primary definition of radiation absorption. You absorb a high energy photon (light), and emit low energy photons (heat) across a specific spectrum (the basis of IR spectroscopy).
Uhh, no duh. What do you think heat capacity is? It is exactly that. And CO2 ain't shit compared to water, which fluctuates more than 100 times as much as the total rise in CO2 over the last hundred years on a monthly basis. That is, any possible effect from CO2 falls within the noise level of that change.
Yes, deride any who don't conform to your viewpoint while simultaneously shying away from answering their pertinent question that throws you entire worldview into question.
Maybe someone should get you a nice hat and call you the Climate Pope. Or you could explain what you mean. Without the derision. But I don't think you are capable of that.
I see, so the mass gained by trees as they grow comes from fairy magic?
Yes, excellent. Take a infinitesimally short time period viewed through the distorted prism of childhood memory and use that as a basis for confirming or denying climate theory.
You do realize that this is exactly what AGW people criticize in the climate deniers, right?
You know, it's funny. 40 years ago, prior to all this regulation, the average CEO made about ten times as much as the average worker in his company. Today, post regulation, the average CEO makes some 40+ times as much (it's rising so fast I can't keep up) as the average worker. This is American companies with American workers.
In other words, your post ignores not only cause and effect, but correlation as well. Total ignorance of reality. The fact is that the more regulations imposed by the government, the rich CEOs get, because the corporations own the government, and use those regulations to squelch competition. This drives new industry abroad.
But it's not the corporations who are to blame. Hate the game, not the player. More specifically, hate the system, and those who created it, and made the rules. This means Republicans and Democrats.
You want to fix this? Get rid of these two parties, and bring in a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. Don't settle for the choice between a turd burger and a shit sandwich.
"By contrast, it seems the scale difference between long-term and short-term climate trends is too complicated for some people to comprehend. "
The exact opposite is true too. Every time there is a heat wave, the AGW people come crawling out of the woodwork to claim victory.
And yes, I do see a contradiction. That is, idiots talking as if ten years of data mean anything in climate science. I also see idiots talking as if thirty years of data means anything in climate science. This is classic timeframe picking, and both sides are guilty of it. But hey, no questions allowed, right? You're either with us or you're against us! The Bush doctrine of climate science seems to be in full swing here.
Actually, I am a scientist. I am a chemist who does materials science work. I looked into this global warming business from a physical chemistry perspective, and have yet to receive an adequate answer as to why CO2 is supposed to cause warming, when the heat capacity is actually slightly lower than the average heat capacity of the atmosphere.
But hey, don't let real scientific skepticism keep you from burning heretics alive.
So you're saying if we had more conspiracy theorists, we could fight global warming?
Tinfoil hats for everyone!
It's there, you just don't see it.
The last decade was simultaneously the hottest on record, and we did not see a warming trend. Clearly we need more money for our research.
I enjoy seeing nasty people like record executives and genocidal maniacs having their dirty laundry aired. I wish we had more detail, though.
-1 Disagree, lol
Yes, they also gave him $247,000 in grants between 4,050,756 BCE and 2007 CE.
How does I understood sample set?
You're just jealous because I can bend spoons using only my hands.
2011-2003=8.
So eight years after claiming to have not knowingly receiving any money from the industry, he is being accused of having gotten a million dollars over ten years. FTFA, I can't find ANY actual grant funding that went in prior to 2003.
Further, clearly these people don't know much about scientific research. A million dollars in grant funding over ten years is 100K a year, barely enough to keep the damn lights on. If he didn't draw a salary off of it, maybe he could afford to pay for a graduate student as well. It's not like this money was being pumped directly into his pocket.
But hey, screw it. Even though climate scientists claim it is now too late to do anything, and that tens of trillions of dollars would have to be expended to have a "too little, too late" effect and despite the fact that simply saving the money would allow us to actually deal with the consequences of any possible warming, let's just throw money at the poorly defined problem until it goes away. After all, that has worked so well with everything else we have tried the strategy on.
The easiest way to do that is to stop and help someone with a flat.
... conundrum.
It's a
You should only throw a stone if you are in a glass house, and trapped.
Can we make corrupt politicians, and anyone who voted for the Patriot Act work these machines for a few months every year?
Nice to know that the Supreme Court recognizes speech as speech.
The people who failed that test should be disbarred. Maybe exiled.
Really?
I don't think you have thought that through.
Hmmm, compare nazi ideology to that PRACTICED (not preached) by both parties, and I think you will see that the argument you claim has failed is actually dead on accurate. Sure, we're not burning people in ovens, but we sure as hell have clamped down on pretty much every freedom that matters in the modern world. Look at the campaign contributions. Very little goes to Libertarian or even libertarian leaning candidates. It all goes to R or D.
And as for your argument that Standard Oil "centrally planned" the American economy, that is truly laughable. You apparently don't understand the meaning of the term "central planning". Standard Oil didn't have army or police forces to enforce the regulations they made on non-consenting parties. All they could do was "control" their own market by operating so efficiently that prices remained so low that no-one could compete. People bitch and whine all the time about how they bullied people out of business, but the thing is, if they were shutting so many people out of business, they would have created an untapped market for rail competitors.
Free market monopolies keep prices DOWN, not UP. The price of Kerosene was cut by 75% between the time they started gaining market share to the time they reached maximum market share. BTW, they never hit 100%. They maxed out around 90%. Any failure, and they would lose market share to the other ten percent. Just like Microsoft has to Apple for PCs, and to Linux for servers.
You point out FALSE facts. Sure these are facts, but they aren't true. "The sky is purple polkadotted" is a fact, but it isn't true. Similarly, I said "like some African nations", and you proceeded to list a bunch where that wasn't the case, and said that most weren't that way. But I didn't say "most", now did I? I said "some". And you claim that corporations would love smaller government, while the TRUE facts say otherwise. The corporations ALWAYS support the two parties of big government.
But hey, you refuse to see reality for what it is. Don't come crying to me when it all comes crashing down on your head, and on your watch.