[QUOTE=libertyforall;1856165]PLEASE, does anyone care about the global warming scare-monger of nonsense Gore who won't debate his NONSENSE?!
This is supposed to be a technology forum, not yet another outlet for 'Fartland' propaganda. Why don't you get some funding from Donald Trump to produce an app using this amazing technology to show how Obama is a monkey born of an illicit communist/jihadist encounter in a Siberian gulag. That would get a lot of downloads!
Not to take anything from Gore on the issue, but having used DARPANET back in the early 80's, I wouldn't give them credit for the internet. DARPANET sucked.
Researchers at CERN, using NeXT computers, developed HTML and only then did we have something that resembles the internet today.
Impressionistic views based on your 'use' of DARPANET are irrelevant.
As with all technologies, things build on each other. HTML might have been utterly useless without the internet.
More interestingly, as something for those who want to take the government out of this type of cutting-edge research to ponder: funding for CERN comes from the taxpayers.
Guys, the debate's over. Cap and Trade failed. COP 15 failed. Al Gore's Carbon Credit market went belly up. The EPA has 2 years before Obama gets kicked out and the economy will almost certainly be in the tank the entire time. It's a dead issue that's not worth arguing over.
For you, maybe. You seem to have missed the news on COP16, and you are obviously not aware of the EU-ETS. Nor of serious plans by countries such as China and Japan to create their own emissions trading systems and/or carbon taxes.
You should read more.
Memo to the US on this issue: the rest of the world is actually moving on, and whether the US joins in or chooses to stay on the sidelines is not something that folks are losing much sleep over at this point.
Aside: It might come as a surprise (especially to the uninformed), but Al Gore had nothing to with cap and trade other than provide some broad Congressional testimony on climate change when the bill was being considered in the House.
PLEASE, does anyone care about the global warming scare-monger of nonsense Gore who won't debate his NONSENSE?!
This is supposed to be a technology forum, not yet another outlet for 'Fartland' propaganda. Why don't you get some funding from Donald Trump to produce an app using this amazing technology to show how Obama is a monkey born of an illicit communist/jihadist encounter in a Siberian gulag. That would get a lot of downloads!
Actually, it was Hilary Clinton who started all the "birther" nonsense.
Impressionistic views based on your 'use' of DARPANET are irrelevant.
As with all technologies, things build on each other. HTML might have been utterly useless without the internet.
More interestingly, as something for those who want to take the government out of this type of cutting-edge research to ponder: funding for CERN comes from the taxpayers.
HTML can be made to work over any network protocol, it doesn't require DARAPANET. That's pretty much cut and dried.
And (I thought) we were discussing Al Gore inventing the internet, not the role of government funding projects. At least, that was the impression I got when you belittled someone for making the (perfectly reasonable) observation that Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the internet what so ever.
For you, maybe. You seem to have missed the news on COP16, and you are obviously not aware of the EU-ETS. Nor of serious plans by countries such as China and Japan to create their own emissions trading systems and/or carbon taxes.
You should read more.
Memo to the US on this issue: the rest of the world is actually moving on, and whether the US joins in or chooses to stay on the sidelines is not something that folks are losing much sleep over at this point.
Aside: It might come as a surprise (especially to the uninformed), but Al Gore had nothing to with cap and trade other than provide some broad Congressional testimony on climate change when the bill was being considered in the House.
As I said, not worth arguing over.
The greens are like those Japanese soldiers stuck on islands in the 50s, still fighting a war that's been lost. I know there's little I can do to change your mind, so you keep fighting, soldier.
The greens are like those Japanese soldiers stuck on islands in the 50s, still fighting a war that's been lost. I know there's little I can do to change your mind, so you keep fighting, soldier.
*salutes*
Oh, don't try to take the high road: you thought it was worth arguing over, otherwise you wouldn't have interjected with your half-informed pap about 'COP15' and 'cap and trade'.
It is a sad state of affairs on your side of the aisle when simple science is confused with being 'green.'
There's no law against scientific stupidity, so go march right on ahead .....
HTML can be made to work over any network protocol, it doesn't require DARAPANET. That's pretty much cut and dried.
And (I thought) we were discussing Al Gore inventing the internet, not the role of government funding projects. At least, that was the impression I got when you belittled someone for making the (perfectly reasonable) observation that Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the internet what so ever.
It's DARPANET.
You brought it up when (I too thought) we were discussing Al Gore.
And, while on the topic. In what other context is HTML used extensively? (I am seriously curious, I'd like to know; I'll readily admit to ignorance there -- that's why I said 'HTML might have been utterly.....').
It is a sad state of affairs on your side of the aisle when simple science is confused with being 'green.'
Now science I don't mind talking about.
Perhaps you could tell me how much temperature, in degrees C, will rise from a doubling of CO₂ from current levels. Just to be clear I'm asking about just CO₂, not any feedback loops or other causes. If you prefer, you can provide your answer in W/m².
Perhaps you could tell me how much temperature, in degrees C, will rise from a doubling of CO₂ from current levels. Just to be clear I'm asking about just CO₂, not any feedback loops or other causes. If you prefer, you can provide your answer in W/m².
Just so we don't waste time, (i) 'Temperature' by when? (ii) What do you think current levels are? (iii) Leaving aside the fact that no one currently has any decent models of feedback loops, when you say 'CO2,' do you mean just CO2 or do you actually mean CO2e?
(PS: I may have to continue this discussion tomorrow, since it's getting pretty late for me where I am).
Perhaps you could tell me how much temperature, in degrees C, will rise from a doubling of CO₂ from current levels. Just to be clear I'm asking about just CO₂, not any feedback loops or other causes. If you prefer, you can provide your answer in W/m².
Oh, in the meantime, you could also perhaps answer my question about non-internet contexts in which HTML is widely used, since you said it was 'cut and dried.'
Just so we don't waste time, (i) 'Temperature' by when? (ii) What do you think current levels are? (iii) Leaving aside the fact that no one currently has any decent models of feedback loops, when you say 'CO2,' do you mean just CO2 or do you actually mean CO2e?
(PS: I may have to continue this discussion tomorrow, since it's getting pretty late for me where I am).
How about we just cut to the chase on that and say the answer is 1.7C±0.2C. Would agree that's a reasonable value?
Oh, in the meantime, you could also perhaps answer my question about non-internet contexts in which HTML is widely used, since you said it was 'cut and dried.'
epubs, the topic of this thread.
Gore deserves credit for pushing funding for advances in tech and for pushing to broaden the reach of the internet after it had been invented. But he didn't fund the invention of networks, nor the invention of HTML.
How about we just cut to the chase on that and say the answer is 1.7C±0.2C. Would agree that's a reasonable value?
Probably not. Closer to a median 3 degC (5.4 degF).
That's a pretty substantial increase (leaving aside the fact that 1.7 ± 0.2 is non-trivial).
The arithmetic is quite simple, really. Globally, we currently emit about 31 gigatons (gt) of CO2 from energy consumption, another 5gt from various other emissions sources, and an additional 8gt - 9gt of CO2e, for, say, a total of about 45gt of CO2e. Let's err on the conservative side and say, 40gt. Earth systems -- land and sea -- naturally absorb about 16gt to 20 gt annually. Let's be generous and say, 20gt. That leaves 20gt that is being added annually to the atmosphere. Now, it is quite well-known from reasonably well-established science (happy to give you references) that every additional 8gt adds 1ppm to the atmosphere (that then sticks around for about 120 - 150 years). So, that's conservatively, 2.5ppm we're adding per year.
We're currently at about 390ppm of just CO2 (compared to pre-inudtrial 280ppm), and perhaps 430 - 440ppm of CO2e. 2.5ppm extra per year by 2040 is an additional 75ppm, i.e., 465ppm of CO2 (and at least 505 - 515ppm of CO2e).
Now, if you want to get a sense of what that implies in terms of temperature forecasts and where I am getting my median of 3 degC -- allowing for the fact that there is a fairly wide band of uncertainty in estimates -- look at p. 19 of this: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ or p. 20 of this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf
Granted, these are summary forecasts meant for a lay audience. But it would be too much for me to do now and here to go much beyond this. Moreover, not too many others are interested, so I would prefer not waste AI space on this (PM me if you want more specifics).
Gore deserves credit for pushing funding for advances in tech and for pushing to broaden the reach of the internet after it had been invented. But he didn't fund the invention of networks, nor the invention of HTML.
I did not say either, so it's moot.
I don't recall anyone else (seriously) saying it either.
And, you still have not answered my question (the answer for which you thought was 'cut and dried').
Sorry, I just noticed you said 'epubs'. How is that different from saying one could create an HTML page? I.e., is 'epubs' a standalone technology of some kind that would survive without the internet?
The global-warming movement needs this sort of whiz-bang graphics to make up for lack of evidence.
Yeah, I too sometimes think that some such 'whiz-bang' appeal is necessary, but for the reason that some people have difficulty processing simple scientific data from tables and such.
Probably not. Closer to a median 3 degC (5.4 degF).
I think you're using IPCC values, which include their feedbacks. I was actually being very generous with the 1.7C number. The usual number tossed around is 1C.
From wikipedia:
"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.
So yeah, it takes a long time to educate folks on these processes. People are tossing around what they call "science" when they really mean "IPCC propaganda".
And as I said on another thread, no amount of links in web posts can bring enlightenment. To get that, you have to do some footwork for yourself. I've pointed the way here and will say the next thing to look into is water vapor's role in all of this.
From here, I'll leave you to your own devices to do that footwork.
Instead of pinching you'd 'do that... thing... with your fingers. Now look, see, the world is ending because Jesus is risen-ating again. Now do the finger thing to go back to the pictures.'
Wow, now I can't decide which book I want to read less.
Almost funny, except bush never claimed the world was ending, gore did. let me know how that smug thing works out for you.
Oh, don't try to take the high road: you thought it was worth arguing over, otherwise you wouldn't have interjected with your half-informed pap about 'COP15' and 'cap and trade'.
It is a sad state of affairs on your side of the aisle when simple science is confused with being 'green.'
There's no law against scientific stupidity, so go march right on ahead .....
There's also no law against moronic, elitist ecofascism, so lead the way toward preserving gaia's eternal happiness...and remember not to insult your pets by calling them pets any more.
Comments
This is supposed to be a technology forum, not yet another outlet for 'Fartland' propaganda. Why don't you get some funding from Donald Trump to produce an app using this amazing technology to show how Obama is a monkey born of an illicit communist/jihadist encounter in a Siberian gulag. That would get a lot of downloads!
Not to take anything from Gore on the issue, but having used DARPANET back in the early 80's, I wouldn't give them credit for the internet. DARPANET sucked.
Researchers at CERN, using NeXT computers, developed HTML and only then did we have something that resembles the internet today.
Impressionistic views based on your 'use' of DARPANET are irrelevant.
As with all technologies, things build on each other. HTML might have been utterly useless without the internet.
More interestingly, as something for those who want to take the government out of this type of cutting-edge research to ponder: funding for CERN comes from the taxpayers.
Guys, the debate's over. Cap and Trade failed. COP 15 failed. Al Gore's Carbon Credit market went belly up. The EPA has 2 years before Obama gets kicked out and the economy will almost certainly be in the tank the entire time. It's a dead issue that's not worth arguing over.
For you, maybe. You seem to have missed the news on COP16, and you are obviously not aware of the EU-ETS. Nor of serious plans by countries such as China and Japan to create their own emissions trading systems and/or carbon taxes.
You should read more.
Memo to the US on this issue: the rest of the world is actually moving on, and whether the US joins in or chooses to stay on the sidelines is not something that folks are losing much sleep over at this point.
Aside: It might come as a surprise (especially to the uninformed), but Al Gore had nothing to with cap and trade other than provide some broad Congressional testimony on climate change when the bill was being considered in the House.
PLEASE, does anyone care about the global warming scare-monger of nonsense Gore who won't debate his NONSENSE?!
This is supposed to be a technology forum, not yet another outlet for 'Fartland' propaganda. Why don't you get some funding from Donald Trump to produce an app using this amazing technology to show how Obama is a monkey born of an illicit communist/jihadist encounter in a Siberian gulag. That would get a lot of downloads!
Actually, it was Hilary Clinton who started all the "birther" nonsense.
Stupidity ignores political boundaries.
Impressionistic views based on your 'use' of DARPANET are irrelevant.
As with all technologies, things build on each other. HTML might have been utterly useless without the internet.
More interestingly, as something for those who want to take the government out of this type of cutting-edge research to ponder: funding for CERN comes from the taxpayers.
HTML can be made to work over any network protocol, it doesn't require DARAPANET. That's pretty much cut and dried.
And (I thought) we were discussing Al Gore inventing the internet, not the role of government funding projects. At least, that was the impression I got when you belittled someone for making the (perfectly reasonable) observation that Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the internet what so ever.
For you, maybe. You seem to have missed the news on COP16, and you are obviously not aware of the EU-ETS. Nor of serious plans by countries such as China and Japan to create their own emissions trading systems and/or carbon taxes.
You should read more.
Memo to the US on this issue: the rest of the world is actually moving on, and whether the US joins in or chooses to stay on the sidelines is not something that folks are losing much sleep over at this point.
Aside: It might come as a surprise (especially to the uninformed), but Al Gore had nothing to with cap and trade other than provide some broad Congressional testimony on climate change when the bill was being considered in the House.
As I said, not worth arguing over.
The greens are like those Japanese soldiers stuck on islands in the 50s, still fighting a war that's been lost. I know there's little I can do to change your mind, so you keep fighting, soldier.
*salutes*
As I said, not worth arguing over.
The greens are like those Japanese soldiers stuck on islands in the 50s, still fighting a war that's been lost. I know there's little I can do to change your mind, so you keep fighting, soldier.
*salutes*
Oh, don't try to take the high road: you thought it was worth arguing over, otherwise you wouldn't have interjected with your half-informed pap about 'COP15' and 'cap and trade'.
It is a sad state of affairs on your side of the aisle when simple science is confused with being 'green.'
There's no law against scientific stupidity, so go march right on ahead .....
HTML can be made to work over any network protocol, it doesn't require DARAPANET. That's pretty much cut and dried.
And (I thought) we were discussing Al Gore inventing the internet, not the role of government funding projects. At least, that was the impression I got when you belittled someone for making the (perfectly reasonable) observation that Gore had nothing to do with the creation of the internet what so ever.
It's DARPANET.
You brought it up when (I too thought) we were discussing Al Gore.
And, while on the topic. In what other context is HTML used extensively? (I am seriously curious, I'd like to know; I'll readily admit to ignorance there -- that's why I said 'HTML might have been utterly.....').
It is a sad state of affairs on your side of the aisle when simple science is confused with being 'green.'
Now science I don't mind talking about.
Perhaps you could tell me how much temperature, in degrees C, will rise from a doubling of CO₂ from current levels. Just to be clear I'm asking about just CO₂, not any feedback loops or other causes. If you prefer, you can provide your answer in W/m².
Now science I don't mind talking about.
Perhaps you could tell me how much temperature, in degrees C, will rise from a doubling of CO₂ from current levels. Just to be clear I'm asking about just CO₂, not any feedback loops or other causes. If you prefer, you can provide your answer in W/m².
Just so we don't waste time, (i) 'Temperature' by when? (ii) What do you think current levels are? (iii) Leaving aside the fact that no one currently has any decent models of feedback loops, when you say 'CO2,' do you mean just CO2 or do you actually mean CO2e?
(PS: I may have to continue this discussion tomorrow, since it's getting pretty late for me where I am).
Now science I don't mind talking about.
Perhaps you could tell me how much temperature, in degrees C, will rise from a doubling of CO₂ from current levels. Just to be clear I'm asking about just CO₂, not any feedback loops or other causes. If you prefer, you can provide your answer in W/m².
Oh, in the meantime, you could also perhaps answer my question about non-internet contexts in which HTML is widely used, since you said it was 'cut and dried.'
Just so we don't waste time, (i) 'Temperature' by when? (ii) What do you think current levels are? (iii) Leaving aside the fact that no one currently has any decent models of feedback loops, when you say 'CO2,' do you mean just CO2 or do you actually mean CO2e?
(PS: I may have to continue this discussion tomorrow, since it's getting pretty late for me where I am).
How about we just cut to the chase on that and say the answer is 1.7C±0.2C. Would agree that's a reasonable value?
EDIT:
Come to think of it, Al Gore and Lady GaGa have a lot in common. Image over substance....
Oh, in the meantime, you could also perhaps answer my question about non-internet contexts in which HTML is widely used, since you said it was 'cut and dried.'
epubs, the topic of this thread.
Gore deserves credit for pushing funding for advances in tech and for pushing to broaden the reach of the internet after it had been invented. But he didn't fund the invention of networks, nor the invention of HTML.
How about we just cut to the chase on that and say the answer is 1.7C±0.2C. Would agree that's a reasonable value?
Probably not. Closer to a median 3 degC (5.4 degF).
That's a pretty substantial increase (leaving aside the fact that 1.7 ± 0.2 is non-trivial).
The arithmetic is quite simple, really. Globally, we currently emit about 31 gigatons (gt) of CO2 from energy consumption, another 5gt from various other emissions sources, and an additional 8gt - 9gt of CO2e, for, say, a total of about 45gt of CO2e. Let's err on the conservative side and say, 40gt. Earth systems -- land and sea -- naturally absorb about 16gt to 20 gt annually. Let's be generous and say, 20gt. That leaves 20gt that is being added annually to the atmosphere. Now, it is quite well-known from reasonably well-established science (happy to give you references) that every additional 8gt adds 1ppm to the atmosphere (that then sticks around for about 120 - 150 years). So, that's conservatively, 2.5ppm we're adding per year.
We're currently at about 390ppm of just CO2 (compared to pre-inudtrial 280ppm), and perhaps 430 - 440ppm of CO2e. 2.5ppm extra per year by 2040 is an additional 75ppm, i.e., 465ppm of CO2 (and at least 505 - 515ppm of CO2e).
Now, if you want to get a sense of what that implies in terms of temperature forecasts and where I am getting my median of 3 degC -- allowing for the fact that there is a fairly wide band of uncertainty in estimates -- look at p. 19 of this: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ or p. 20 of this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf
Granted, these are summary forecasts meant for a lay audience. But it would be too much for me to do now and here to go much beyond this. Moreover, not too many others are interested, so I would prefer not waste AI space on this (PM me if you want more specifics).
epubs, the topic of this thread.
Gore deserves credit for pushing funding for advances in tech and for pushing to broaden the reach of the internet after it had been invented. But he didn't fund the invention of networks, nor the invention of HTML.
I did not say either, so it's moot.
I don't recall anyone else (seriously) saying it either.
And, you still have not answered my question (the answer for which you thought was 'cut and dried').
Sorry, I just noticed you said 'epubs'. How is that different from saying one could create an HTML page? I.e., is 'epubs' a standalone technology of some kind that would survive without the internet?
The global-warming movement needs this sort of whiz-bang graphics to make up for lack of evidence.
Yeah, I too sometimes think that some such 'whiz-bang' appeal is necessary, but for the reason that some people have difficulty processing simple scientific data from tables and such.
Probably not. Closer to a median 3 degC (5.4 degF).
I think you're using IPCC values, which include their feedbacks. I was actually being very generous with the 1.7C number. The usual number tossed around is 1C.
From wikipedia:
"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...ity#Essentials
So yeah, it takes a long time to educate folks on these processes. People are tossing around what they call "science" when they really mean "IPCC propaganda".
And as I said on another thread, no amount of links in web posts can bring enlightenment. To get that, you have to do some footwork for yourself. I've pointed the way here and will say the next thing to look into is water vapor's role in all of this.
From here, I'll leave you to your own devices to do that footwork.
Instead of pinching you'd 'do that... thing... with your fingers. Now look, see, the world is ending because Jesus is risen-ating again. Now do the finger thing to go back to the pictures.'
Wow, now I can't decide which book I want to read less.
Almost funny, except bush never claimed the world was ending, gore did. let me know how that smug thing works out for you.
Oh, don't try to take the high road: you thought it was worth arguing over, otherwise you wouldn't have interjected with your half-informed pap about 'COP15' and 'cap and trade'.
It is a sad state of affairs on your side of the aisle when simple science is confused with being 'green.'
There's no law against scientific stupidity, so go march right on ahead .....
There's also no law against moronic, elitist ecofascism, so lead the way toward preserving gaia's eternal happiness...and remember not to insult your pets by calling them pets any more.