Solving Global Warming

[Azure]

My bad- it turns out that they took that language out before they released it. They put in language that means a 90% certainty- not 99%, despite the fact that many of the scientists who did the research wanted the 99% language.

Specifically, they now say "very likely," which means >90% probability, rather than "virtually certain," which means >99%, regarding whether the increase in global average temperature is due to human-created carbon dioxide.

In other words, there's a 10% chance you're not an idiot, rather than 1%. Neato. Congratulations.

So there is conclusive evidence that global warming is a problem caused solely by mankind?

Or did you fall for that hogwash too? Blame mankind, but tell us there is nothing we an do about it.

Neato...looks like you're a moron too.

 

[Schneibster]

So there is conclusive evidence that global warming is a problem caused solely by mankind?

There's a 90% probability of it, according to the MOST CAUTIOUS of those qualified by their work to express an informed opinion, yes.

Or did you fall for that hogwash too?

Errrmmmm, you are a woo. "Hogwash" doesn't get published in Nature. This conversation is over.

 

[DeviousB]

"Hogwash" doesn't get published in Nature.

Well... there was that Benveniste paper about the 'molecular memory of water'.

 

[Geckko]

Well... there was that Benveniste paper about the 'molecular memory of water'.

...and Wakefield on MMR I thought?????

 

[Schneibster]

Heh, occasionally something makes it past them. It doesn't happen often- they don't like being embarrassed. In this case, we're not talking about one paper- it's more like a few hundred.

The MMR article was in Lancet- not Nature.

 

[DeviousB]

I think they only do it to boost sales.

The point (for this discussion) is, they aren't still printing papers on the 'molecular memory of water', from hundreds of differently labs, all broadly agreeing on the effect, using evidence from dozens of sources, obtained via dozens of different techniques.

 

[Geckko]

Heh, occasionally something makes it past them. It doesn't happen often- they don't like being embarrassed. In this case, we're not talking about one paper- it's more like a few hundred.

The MMR article was in Lancet- not Nature.

Yeah, that sounds right.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Do you have any reference for this? I'm not disputing it, I'm genuinely curious, and would love to have a look at the numbers to see what relative effect this process has. It's kinda neat.

No, I'm afraid not. It may be total nonsense. Now I'm forced to think about it , I have no idea where I first heard it. I've simply accepted it since (at least) high school.

May be right may be wrong. Please don't quote me on it.

 

[DeviousB]

No, I'm afraid not. It may be total nonsense. Now I'm forced to think about it , I have no idea where I first heard it. I've simply accepted it since (at least) high school.

According to this Scientific American item, Venus may once have had a moon.

One of biggest mysteries in the solar system is why Venus has no moon. A new model suggests that our sister planet may have in fact had a moon, but that it was destroyed. Earth's moon is thought to have formed when a Mars-size body struck the early Earth, hurling material into orbit, where it coalesced. Normally, material launched ballistically would merely fall back down to the surface, but the impact temporarily distorted Earth's shape and therefore its gravitational field; the lopsided gravity allowed material to remain in orbit. Since it formed, the moon has gradually receded from Earth because of gravitational interactions between the two bodies: the moon raises tides on Earth, and these tides back-react onto the moon, accelerating it at the expense of Earth's rotation.

Venus, being nearly identical in size and general composition to Earth, presumably would also have gotten whacked by large bodies. [...] At the Division for Planetary Sciences conference in Pasadena, Calif., on October 9, Alex Alemi, a sophomore undergraduate at the California Institute of Technology, and Caltech planetary scientist David Stevenson argued that the mystery may be connected to another oddity of Venus: its rotation rate, which is not only extremely slow (once every 243 Earth days) but also backward (clockwise as seen from above its north pole, rather than counterclockwise, as it is for Earth and the other planets). They suggested that Venus underwent not one but two large impacts.

The first hit on the side of Venus that caused the planet to spin counterclockwise. It created a moon that began to drift away, like Earth's. The second slammed into the side of Venus that caused it to spin clockwise--canceling the effect of the first collision. The cancellation need not have been exact; the sun's gravity could have completed the task of slowing and even reversing Venus's rotation. The reversal changed the gravitational interactions between the moon and planet, causing the moon to start moving inward and ultimately collide with the planet. The second impact may or may not have created a moon, too. If it did, this moon would have been swept up by the first one on its inward plunge toward doom.

 

[lenny]

So there is conclusive evidence that global warming is a problem caused solely by mankind?

so what is the point of this question? it seems constructed to mislead.

"conclusive evidence": no, of course not.

"evidence": yes, nontrivial and strong.

"caused solely by mankind": no, of course not.

"significantly enhanced by mankind": yes, it seems so.

it is not even clear what "caused solely by mankind" might mean, given the nonlinearities of the earth's climate system, inasmuch as other things are going on, nothing in geosciences over one-hundred years is "caused solely by" anything else!