Sorry bad numbers.... I meant to say 330 to 400 -- the change from the 80's to now which have coincided with the most recent warming trend.
Do you happen to have a the reference for those CO2 forcing numbers? Every time I've tried to follow footnotes from an IPCC report, it sends me on a chain of references that just ends up back at an earlier IPCC report.
I've read all the IPCC reports. I've read dozens of climate papers published in the climatology journals. I've downloaded all the ice core data to do my own numerical experiments. What I am doing is pointing out some bad oversimplified reasoning.
The question isn't whether "CO2 causes warming" but whether a change from 290 to 330 ppm in the troposphere can be the cause of a measurable change in the heat content of troposphere. Since it's all so trivial, I'm curious whether your undergraduate text explains why increased CO2 concentration in the stratosphere causes the stratosphere to loose heat.
Fast food doesn't make you fat.
Too much food makes you fat.
signed, someone who recently lost 55 pounds of fat and put on 8 pounds of muscle on a calorie-controlled diet of mcdonalds and burger king.
Solar power will not get cheap in the next decade or two or three or four. And while coal power will eventually go away, that time is hundreds and hundreds of years away.
Lawrence Krauss is an example of someone who would rather redefine "nothing" to mean "something" just so he can say "the universe came from nothing" to see how many people it annoys.
Precisely. The use of the word "nothing" is pure pseudoscience, uttered by who are more interested in scoring points against religion than saying anything of scientific relevance.
Are all droughts caused by global warming, or were there droughts before global warming? Or maybe global warming just makes all droughts worse? It couldn't possibly make a drought better, right. It probably makes all floods worse too. It probably just makes everything worse. Makes total sense.
And that while this is a tremendous experiment, it's not any kind of "smoking gun", and we really need to wait for replication to get properly excited.
It's not that it's not a smoking gun. It is a smoking gun. It's that scientists like to have several smoking guns.
This is certainly the first detection of gravity waves. True, the gravity waves themselves aren't operating directly on the instrument. But as one of the researchers pointed out, there are two ways you could detect waves in the ocean, you could put a buoy in the water and detect it moving up and down, or you could take a picture of the waves from a distance, and this is like the latter.
Exchanges folding up have nothing to do with whether or not bitcoin is a good investment. Bitcoin's value is the same as it was in mid-December. Exchanges folding up, rather, means that it's unwise to trust your bitcoins to be held by exchanges.
So you think there's some meta-authority over the government that tells it what spending is "mandatory"? No, there is not. The government decides what is mandatory. The government can change what is mandatory, the same as they change any other law.
You have it completely backwards. Most degrees are worthless to employers. Employable skills are not what is taught in college. If you want a good paying job, you should go to welding school. If you want a pile of debt and to live in you're parents' basement indefinitely, get a philosophy degree.
It costs so much because people have been conditioned to be willing to pay anything for it, believing it is essential for future success. And if they can't afford it the government ensures that they can borrow for it. There's no way tuition can possibly go but up until this scenario changes.