Comment Re:PUSKUNOV is the best (Score 1) 170
Nah, Jarnik all the way! ;-) But if this is what you want, you can fetch it right now.
Pity that people can't self-publish these days...
Oh, wait!
A nice response, and interesting. But if you dig a little deeper, you'll see it's not that trivial.
Yes it is.
I would note that your post didn't address the relative orders of magnitude of CO2.
Calculations, please. Making stuff up isn't science. Calculating effects is. If you think that relative magnitude of CO2 is relevant, give me a back of the envelope showing plausibility. You can use as a starting point the fact all the volcanoes worldwide emit, on average, an estimated 130 to 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year. (Sounds like a lot, doesn't it?)
My revised argument (I didn't type the following in the earlier post) is that natural CO2 dominates anthropogenic CO2,
Correct.
and any changes we induce to the overall temperature are overshadowed by natural variations.
Nope. They add to the natural variations... but the natural variations tend to average out with time, while the anthropogenic CO2 is monotonic upward.
In particular, the variations in chemistry and temperature of the ocean dominate the chemical equilibrium.
Don't speculate, calculate. About two minutes of work should show you that this is not even within a few orders of magnitude of being relevant. You need a back of the envelope calculation showing plausibility.
What I didn't add about the undersea volcanoes is when heat and acid are added to water, LeChatlier's principle states that the alkaline ocean (remember, ocean pH varies from 7.0 to 8.0) will go slightly more acidic (sulfuric acid is a much stronger acid than carbon dioxide) and push the carbon dioxide out of the water, and increasing temperature raises the dissociation constant of water (or lowers the pKw, take your pick) and also forces out more CO2.
Now you're talking effects that aren't even close to being relevant. Don't speculate, calculate.
Anyone who has drunk a warm, flat beer, or poured vinegar into soda water and watch it fizz, can observe this. The assumed heat added by volcanoes is 525,000 TW-h, [check your numbers too
Show me an order of magnitude. How much is the effect?
If there is a 10% variation in the volcanic releases of heat and SO4 (or 52,000 TW-h, compared to 142 TW-h from anthropogenic sources), that will affect the environment more than what we add, and it can be argued that from the energy balance difference (recall the worlds energy demand is another way of showing the chemical potential differences between the hydrocarbons and CO2 + H2O). This is significant,
Sorry, but your numbers fail a check of units. The units needed are warming in degrees K. Any other numbers need to, eventually, be turned into warming in K by a calculation.
and the argument cannot be dismissed by calling me a denier.
You have stopped being a denier when you started doing calculations with actual numbers. You may be wrong... but you have now demonstrated that you are not a denier.
It could be dismissed if all volcanoes were identified and their activity cataloged.
Unnecessary. If the effect is many orders of magnitude too small to think about, no need to pay further attention.
OK, let's throw caution to the wind. What could we conceivably do right now? How much of that 50 million could we cut tomorrow?
Some geo-engineering could make an immediate impact. For instance, oceanic iron fertilization could remove millions of tons of CO2 per day. Yet we are no longer even researching the idea. The problem is, the people yelling "caution, caution, caution" don't really want to be cautious, they just want to roadblock all research in geo-engineering. The cautious approach would be to explore lots of ideas, so we understand the consequences, and are able to make informed choices in the future.
You might be talking about XRP, but I think most other people are talking about the payment network.
I have a friend who was a medical entomologist and journal editor before he retired. I ran into him while I was browsing a book table at a conference, and mentioned that I'd like to buy one of the medical entomology textbooks but the $250 price tag was a bit steep.
"Just wait," he said. "I'm about to change that. I'm writing a new textbook that will be a lot cheaper. I want students and public health departments to be able to afford a solid medical entomology reference."
When his book came out the publisher set the priced at $500. It was twice as expensive any of its competitors. Now something like this is never going to sell like a basic calculus book, but it has a considerably larger market than you'd think. His idea was that it would find its way into the syllabus in medical, veterinary and public health schools; and that hospitals and public health agencies would buy copies for their libraries. But his strategy to make that happen by making the book affordable and sell in (relatively) high numbers; the publisher had other plans.
So don't blame authors for high textbook prices. It's publishers who set the price.
First, pointing a finger and screeching 'DENIER' seems a lot like pointing the finger and screeching 'HERETIC', lending credence to the whole environmentalism-as-a-substitute-religion theory.
We should also teach children to bully the kids who aren't vaccinated, by pointing at them and yelling UNCLEAN!
Actually, skeptigate has a nice ring to it. "Some idiot was complaining about some conspiracy theories and I had to skeptigate him until he shut up".
Don't you oppress me.
Cracker as a term predates slavery in the US; it actually predates the whole country. See the crackers on wikipedia or The Secret History Of The Word 'Cracker' for an outline of the theories and history here. There was a large enough intersection between white slave owners and the white people called crackers that it probably helped popularize the term, but they were not the same group.
Well, actually, copyright infringement is the illegal distribution of copyrighted content. You can legally make a million backup copies as long as you don't distribute more than one 'available' at time. Backups of the licensed content you own is completely legal as is also the replacement of damaged content media with new media. There is also a huge distinction between free and for profit distribution of that content. The distortion now comes it as to whether this is of value to society or whether it now just causes more harm than good and of course attempting to feed insatiable greed is never a good idea. Knowledge of course as being essential to any functioning society and especially with regard to democracies should always be freely accessible.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
