You really need to share some of the drugs you are taking. They must be awesome. So, what kind of photosynthesis does a car do?
It of course doesn't, but you knew that.
However, you feed it carbon, and it spits it back out. In, out. No sequestration of carbon. Neutral.
Building a trillion cars adds 0 carbon to the carbon cycle, only adds steps to the cycle. It's the extraction of carbon from outside of the cycle that is not neutral.
This is unlike a tree, which takes atmospheric carbon, and builds this stuff called wood out of it.
Yes, for a little while. In the fastest growing period. Once the forest is somewhat established, the rotting processes etc in that forest will produce as much carbon as the forest consumes. Sure, the growth stage is semi-long in human terms, but it is both far too slow and far too inefficient to do anything about our current emissions.
You still miss the point. Sure the forest becomes carbon neutral. Who cares. A car is carbon neutral. But that forest didn't spring forth magically from the ground. It took several metric fucktons of carbon to create that new chunk of carbon cycle right there. The existence of the forest is a net negative in atmospheric carbon, even if the forest's regular non-growing respiration is not.
Quit thinking about it in terms of emissions. Emissions aren't the problem. If you mean to say that we couldn't plant trees quick enough to offset the carbon we're injecting into the cycle from the depths of the Earth, then sure, you're probably right, at least in a long-term. The solution is to stop fucking adding that carbon to the cycle, or to offset that added carbon with more sink capability (trees) as much as possible. There is a fixed amount of carbon in the cycle, + what we are adding via hydrocarbon extraction. We want more of that carbon to be in the form of biomass than CO2. That means trees.
As for cars, putting any kind of restrictions on cars to curb CO2 emissions is retarded, since personal transport constitutes a tiny part (4-5%) of the total CO2 emissions. Going electrical is retarded since the electricity used to drive the car is, in the end, produced by burning coal. None of the current efforts to curb CO2 emissions have any theoretical possibility of making a dent in CO2 emissions since they do not encourage, or enforce, a reduction in (or stopping of) the burning of coal.
Curbing CO2 emissions is retarded, directly speaking. But it has the added bonus of reducing the demand for the actual bad aspect here- the carbon being added to the cycle from below the ground.
Electricity to drive the car comes from many sources. Here in Seattle, I assure you it is not coal. For all of the electric cars in the midwest and the south, I'm sure you're absolutely right.
Germany has gone to 30-40% electricity production using renewable energy. Still, their CO2 emissions have increased at exactly the same rate as the rest of the world. For two main reasons - 1/ The morons are shutting down nuclear plants, and 2/ when mixing renewable energy and fossil burning, the fossil burning becomes far less efficient and the CO2 emissions from coal and oil increases quite significantly.
I don't see how fossil burning becomes less efficient, at all when mixed with renewable energy. The base load is quite stable. I'm pretty sure reason #1 is the only real reason their CO2 output has increased... But what does that have to do with the conversation? We're talking about sequestering carbon in the form of trees...
Come on, dude. Certainly you understand that the addition of a forest where previously there was not is a carbon sink, and even if that new sink is neutral, it still represents a net decrease of unsequestered carbon floating around in the fscking atmosphere?
Current levels are not even "average" in the context of history.
What kind of timescale are we talking about? Hundred years? Thousand? Ten thousand? Millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions? You could be very wrong, or very right with that assertion. I'm going to assume you're right, and we'll talk hundreds of millions.
It's amusing you cite the Sun in any fashion because it wasn't all that long ago than any mention of the Sun with regards to climate change was dismissed out of hand.
I had assumed in the first quote, you were defining history as "a really fucking long time", which humorously enough, is the exact timescale where the Sun's variance over time starts to play a real part in the Earth's thermodynamic equilibrium game. Turns out solar evolution is a pretty slow process. Of course, now that you've asserted that short-term variations in solar output are driving climate change, I can see I you've just attempted to change the definition of "history" that you initially assigned to fit a contradicting argument. Seems legit.
What you are doing is making shit up on the fly and talking in circles just avoid the fact that the CO2 concentrations today pale with what the traditionally have been.
At least he isn't changing definitions every other statement to support his assertion. Ignorant, or trolling? Can't tell.
You're a word-smith. Beautifully written.
You see, I asked you for yours, because upon googling, I could find no such study information.
Now, if you google "gender differences in spatial intelligence", you're going to have quite a different result. The consensus is moving toward spatial ability gender differences being a matter of nurture, not nature. Determined by culture, not sex organs.
Wikipedia has probably the most comprehensive list of scientific citations on the topic, with the debunkings of decades-old studies that failed to account for even a modicum of non-physiological possibilities. You should read up. Learn something new.
Ultimately, though, given just how much information there is on the topic, I'm pretty sure you're playing off of some pre-conceived cultural leanings.
Should citation be provided, the onus is on you to decide what it was before the advent of video games that led to the dichotomy. I can certainly come up with many solid guesses that we could pursue.
However, the fact remains, that with a modern population, the disparity does not exist where today's methods of a young male honing his spatial acuity are also practiced by a female.
How about the fact that females have a higher average than males on language testing? Or that males beat females on spatial acuity tests?
While these statements are accurate, you're drawing improper conclusions that the studies themselves did not.
There are many upbringing differences between the average male and female, that when brought into parity remove the full standard deviation in spatial intelligence quotient, for example. Video games are a big factor. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the statistical difference is in any way physiological.
Set up an entire NSA team to infiltrate the Chinese military establishment and depants their national security secrets on a Wikileaks-By-Uncle-Sam level
There's far too much value for us in them not knowing what we know. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Chinese military establishment is largely depantsed already.