If only there were some sort of central repository of information that you could query to quickly find the answer to your question, ideally in less time than it took you to click Reply, type in your question with extra unimportant information, click Preview, then click Submit.
Maybe that's because the majority of slashdotters don't need to worry about waking up black or female. Waking up old, however, awaits us all...
Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many.
And I strongly disagree with the GPs assertion that there is "nothing inherently wrong with bringing attorneys into it."
That seems to be such a pervasive sentiment that it has made our society one that actually believes we need lawyers to behave like reasonable people. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that has been created by - you guessed it - lawyers.
That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.
Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.
But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.
When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actually have to defend those assertions with something. I'm sure it'll be amusing to hear me explain how the Grays are hiding their giant coal burning mothership behind the Moon (obviously NASA is in on it!) or God's giant hand is just as completely undetectable to us as is the vast knob of his thermostat.
Then you can decide just how crazy I am.
And then you wonder why people are still so adamant on their side, despite all the work you've done arguing against them.
MightyMartian isn't going to be rationally talked out of a position he/she didn't get into rationally in the first place. But maybe next time, there will be more to that post (and who knows, maybe some persuasive evidence even!) than just a touchie feelie assertion.
is supposed to generate 1.2C
Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.
To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.
If anything the models have been too conservative.
Unless, of course, they're not too conservative. That's always the problem with assertions not backed by evidence. They can be just as wrong as right.
1) The Earth is usually a lot hotter than it is right now. We are climbing out of an ice age.
We "climbed out of an ice age" (that is, came out of the glaciation) ten thousand years ago.
You didn't look at the graphs in the referenced article, did you?
By those graphs we STARTED climbing out of an ice age back then but we still have a long way to go. So they support the poster's claim, not yours.
The issue is settled, mankind's massive emissions affect mankind's environment, Earth.
a: If it's "settled", it's not science.
The only question now is what the fuck are we going to do about it, and who can we trust not to line their pocket on both sides of that line?
"Only" question? There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".
Maybe msmash could find the same article on a more reputable site, like Buzzfeed or CNN.
Easy enough. Don't Anonymous Cowards have google?
Looks like the grandparent poster should have flagged it as sarcasm.
For the humor impaired: Buzzfeed and CNN are regarded as having been more "fake" than the Washington Post.
According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
No. A doubling of CO2 by 400 ppm is expected to result in an increase of 1.5 to 2.0 C in short term heating plus some undetermined amount of long term heating (depends on how seriously you take the positive feedback claims). So for your example of a 100 ppm increase, it's going to be at least 0.5 C increase in temperature just from short term heating. That model incidentally is consistent with the temperature readings of the past century and a half.
Wait - we still have an antitrust agency? I haven't heard much from it during the past few decades.
The entire FTC's budget for 2016 was only about $307 million. They only asked for $342 million for 2017.
If they're going to be given more responsibility and actually exercise it effectively (which involves bringing, and winning or settling, suits against multibillion dollar conglomerates) I expect they'll need some more.
If all else fails, lower your standards.