Ozone in lower atmosphere==bad. Smog, lung damage, etc.
Ozone in thin layer in upper atmosphere==good. Less UV, less skin cancer, etc.
Ozone from the lower atmosphere doesn't make it to the upper atmosphere, at least not to my knowledge. And it doesn't really matter, because the ozone layer has pretty well recovered.
I don't think that is the problem. It's the continued existence of telecom monopolies that is the cause of our slow/non-existant progress, IMO. Of course, who granted those monopolies?
Termites are not a problem when you are being hit with a tsunami four times a day.
Things only get worse when the tsunami becomes acid. That is the REAL problem with increasing CO2 concentrations. I don't know why people harp on global whatever when ocean acidification is an undeniable reality with a non-complex direct visible link to atmospheric CO2.
So you are saying that water vapor used to be a byproduct of combustion, but isn't anymore?
Sort of like saying that a tsunami is no big deal because it is in rapid equilibrium with the ocean level, and that the real reason our buildings keep falling over is termites.
Also, the tsunami happens four times a day. Possibly because we keep dynamiting cliffside into the bay. But that is probably just a coincidence.
Don't forget the externalized costs. I wonder how much they get in subsidies? Would you be willing to fork over a $10,000 connection fee to hook up, and pay an additional $200 a month for the service? Probably not.
But I'm just shooting from the hip. I don't have any facts or figures beyond that people in socialist countries claim to be so much better off than everyone else while they devour their seed corn and still manage to have a lower standard of living than less socialist and even outright FASCIST countries like the US.
Sure, that will never change. None of the principles will ever die unexpectedly, and their heirs would NEVER sell out their inheritance for cashola. Also, things are always exactly what they seem, ESPECIALLY to uninformed outsiders who comment anonymously on the internet.
Until they go bankrupt, then all your games and little "achievements" are thrown in the garbage can and you have to buy them all again.
The trend for the last few years has been to make closed garbage. I won't buy even one of these games unless I OWN it when I do so. If it requires an internet connection, I don't buy it. Period. Sadly, for now, that means I am mostly stuck with the PS2 and Wii. Oh well.
So you are saying that mankind actually went through the industrial revolution 2,750 years ago, and like, all the history textbooks are like, totally lying to us?
Groovy, man.
In case you don't get it, your hypothetical is poorly designed. It should be year one, year 2200, year 4400, year 6600, year 8800, and year 11000, of which humanity has been significantly industrialized for only 100 years.
Also, it's pretty twisty of you to try to claim that the authors of the study were so stupid as to take only a few time points, rather than a more continuous histogram. Twisty twisty snake, AC.
Not to comment on AGW, but evolution tends to happen very quickly, as a result of selective pressure. It has been shown to occur in just 50 years in Australia, where snakes have evolved a different head shape so that they will no longer attempt to eat poisonous cane toads.
Evolution is FAST. Warming isn't really that big of a deal in the current die-off. That is caused mostly by loss of habitat, introduction of invasive species, and hunting/eradication efforts.
The real problem is ocean acidification, which is a direct result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Species will no doubt rapidly evolve to deal with it, but we are unlikely to like the results RE fisheries.
They will be silenced quickly once China starts their program in earnest, and the cheap electricity fuels their economy for a second industrial revolution (where their first one is now winding down).
Once it has been demonstrated, and the first nation adopts it, there will be no stopping it. Any nation that tries will be left in the dust.
Except that's not really the case. The grain belts of the world are all in temperate zones, which would only benefit from a slightly higher temperature. The lands that will be opened to farming are just as rich as our grain belts were before we started farming them.
There is precedent for the equatorial regions being uninhabitable in the history of the Earth, but that is a long, LONG way away, and we have geoengineering methods that could prevent the worst of that in any event. Or rather, we will in the future, if crazy people like you don't destroy our economy and send us back to the pre-industrial era.
I don't think you understand how agriculture works. If you cut hydrocarbon input, production collapses, and poor people everywhere starve. Compared to the possibility of a few degree temperature increase, that is far better for everyone involved.
China is said to be investing heavily in thorium technology.
Honestly, all of this AGW and peak oil crap is moot. Thorium is a game changer. Once the first nation starts using it, everyone who isn't a flaming moron will switch. Except that all politicians are flaming morons.
By the time child labor was outlawed, the industrial base had been built up to the point that child laborers weren't needed, and were vanishingly rare. Liberals like to think that they can command the tide, in their arrogance. The market decides. In that case, the capital investment made it such that a single parent was more productive than his entire family would have been if he had lived just one generation earlier. The sacrifice of the earlier generation build the foundation upon which all the things we now take for granted are funded. Take a heavy handed approach, and demand such things before the market is prepared to provide them, and you will destroy your market.
If you could dictate progress, Soviet Russia never would have collapsed.
Slashdot Mirror
We're already there, but you and your kind helped greatly in its construction.
Ozone in lower atmosphere==bad. Smog, lung damage, etc.
Ozone in thin layer in upper atmosphere==good. Less UV, less skin cancer, etc.
Ozone from the lower atmosphere doesn't make it to the upper atmosphere, at least not to my knowledge. And it doesn't really matter, because the ozone layer has pretty well recovered.
I don't think that is the problem. It's the continued existence of telecom monopolies that is the cause of our slow/non-existant progress, IMO. Of course, who granted those monopolies?
Termites are not a problem when you are being hit with a tsunami four times a day.
Things only get worse when the tsunami becomes acid. That is the REAL problem with increasing CO2 concentrations. I don't know why people harp on global whatever when ocean acidification is an undeniable reality with a non-complex direct visible link to atmospheric CO2.
What of the lower atmosphere? That's where all the water vapor emissions are.
So you are saying that water vapor used to be a byproduct of combustion, but isn't anymore?
Sort of like saying that a tsunami is no big deal because it is in rapid equilibrium with the ocean level, and that the real reason our buildings keep falling over is termites.
Also, the tsunami happens four times a day. Possibly because we keep dynamiting cliffside into the bay. But that is probably just a coincidence.
What you have described is fascism, not capitalism. Knowing the difference could save your life one day.
Don't forget the externalized costs. I wonder how much they get in subsidies? Would you be willing to fork over a $10,000 connection fee to hook up, and pay an additional $200 a month for the service? Probably not.
But I'm just shooting from the hip. I don't have any facts or figures beyond that people in socialist countries claim to be so much better off than everyone else while they devour their seed corn and still manage to have a lower standard of living than less socialist and even outright FASCIST countries like the US.
Right, and I'm sure that your population is evenly distributed throughout your country, rather than being concentrated in two or three urban areas.
Sure, that will never change. None of the principles will ever die unexpectedly, and their heirs would NEVER sell out their inheritance for cashola. Also, things are always exactly what they seem, ESPECIALLY to uninformed outsiders who comment anonymously on the internet.
Craniofacial implants.
Really? Because I would like to be able to chew gum without terror.
Until they go bankrupt, then all your games and little "achievements" are thrown in the garbage can and you have to buy them all again.
The trend for the last few years has been to make closed garbage. I won't buy even one of these games unless I OWN it when I do so. If it requires an internet connection, I don't buy it. Period. Sadly, for now, that means I am mostly stuck with the PS2 and Wii. Oh well.
So you are saying that mankind actually went through the industrial revolution 2,750 years ago, and like, all the history textbooks are like, totally lying to us?
Groovy, man.
In case you don't get it, your hypothetical is poorly designed. It should be year one, year 2200, year 4400, year 6600, year 8800, and year 11000, of which humanity has been significantly industrialized for only 100 years.
Also, it's pretty twisty of you to try to claim that the authors of the study were so stupid as to take only a few time points, rather than a more continuous histogram. Twisty twisty snake, AC.
Not to comment on AGW, but evolution tends to happen very quickly, as a result of selective pressure. It has been shown to occur in just 50 years in Australia, where snakes have evolved a different head shape so that they will no longer attempt to eat poisonous cane toads.
Evolution is FAST. Warming isn't really that big of a deal in the current die-off. That is caused mostly by loss of habitat, introduction of invasive species, and hunting/eradication efforts.
The real problem is ocean acidification, which is a direct result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Species will no doubt rapidly evolve to deal with it, but we are unlikely to like the results RE fisheries.
They will be silenced quickly once China starts their program in earnest, and the cheap electricity fuels their economy for a second industrial revolution (where their first one is now winding down).
Once it has been demonstrated, and the first nation adopts it, there will be no stopping it. Any nation that tries will be left in the dust.
Except that's not really the case. The grain belts of the world are all in temperate zones, which would only benefit from a slightly higher temperature. The lands that will be opened to farming are just as rich as our grain belts were before we started farming them.
There is precedent for the equatorial regions being uninhabitable in the history of the Earth, but that is a long, LONG way away, and we have geoengineering methods that could prevent the worst of that in any event. Or rather, we will in the future, if crazy people like you don't destroy our economy and send us back to the pre-industrial era.
I don't think you understand how agriculture works. If you cut hydrocarbon input, production collapses, and poor people everywhere starve. Compared to the possibility of a few degree temperature increase, that is far better for everyone involved.
So, your handwaving "statistics" makes "75th percentile" the same as "OMG hottest evar"?
Statistically. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
China is said to be investing heavily in thorium technology.
Honestly, all of this AGW and peak oil crap is moot. Thorium is a game changer. Once the first nation starts using it, everyone who isn't a flaming moron will switch. Except that all politicians are flaming morons.
Ok, maybe not so moot.
Because you must either have ALL regulations, or NONE. Dandy logic you got there, sparky.
It would be nice if they had held a part time job while in high school. But I guess that is the devil.
By the time child labor was outlawed, the industrial base had been built up to the point that child laborers weren't needed, and were vanishingly rare. Liberals like to think that they can command the tide, in their arrogance. The market decides. In that case, the capital investment made it such that a single parent was more productive than his entire family would have been if he had lived just one generation earlier. The sacrifice of the earlier generation build the foundation upon which all the things we now take for granted are funded. Take a heavy handed approach, and demand such things before the market is prepared to provide them, and you will destroy your market.
If you could dictate progress, Soviet Russia never would have collapsed.
Right, because mass torture is something implemented by good leaders. You can only be called a dictator once you start using ULTRA-TORTURE.
Not who you were talking to, but Libya, Mali, and Yemen come to mind.
But hey, those aren't big, flashy wars, so the people being murdered there don't count.