Conservatives waking up to climate change

[PMZ]

Did you know that co2 is a greenhouse gas and do you know what that means?

Means you can't find an experiment?

No, it means that I don't know if you have the basic science to understand the answer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think that the current denialist cult are hard cores unable in any way to learn. The admission of being wrong is not possible in their world. We have a few in the world apparently still claiming a flat earth 1600 years after the first proof of spherical, so there is never the possibility of complete agreement.

Fortunately, it doesn't matter any more. Doers have the main stage now and deniers are irrelevant.

Help a guy out willya

Someone asked me to show them an experiment that shows a temperature increase from adding 200ppm of CO2 and I can't find anything, where did you go for the proof of the Global Warming hypothesis

Like all science, the most reliable experiment would be to wait and see.

But, also like most science, waiting to see would probably be the most costly approach because by the time we saw, we would have no choices left. We'd be stuck with what we saw.

So, like most science we look for ways to model the system mathematically so that we can have insight to the problem, so that we can manage it, to a less costly consequence.

Here's how such an scientific approach has worked in the field of AGW.

There is the big picture and there are the details. All have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

So we have science. Certain about the big picture. Unable to build multi year weather models. We have data that support the reliability of the models that can be built. We have a global organization of qualified experts to do the science.

Then we have the politics. Never certain. Always chaotic. Full of charlatans.

Then we have doers, engineers, investors, problem solvers. They are out of the gate and more join everyday. They don't wait for risk free certainty. They look for opportunity.

So, things are unfolding as they should.

Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?

 

[PMZ]

Yeah... 4 EPA officials..

Rucklehaus is over 80 yrs old and was a lawyer by trade. I doubt that he supplied anything but a signature.. So WHO could have pushed this??

Christine Todd Whitman writes op-ed advancing her client's interest --- NYT runs it | WashingtonExaminer.com

For starters, Christie Todd Whitman is co-chair of a nuclear-industry lobby group called “CASEnergy.” Nuclear companies would profit from regulation of greenhouse gases. This doesn’t disqualify Whitman’s argument, and it doesn’t actually argue against the regulation of GHGs. It does indicate that maybe Whitman should have disclosed this.

Whitman also runs Whitman Strategy Group, with offices in Princeton and on K Street. Whitman Strategy Group helps corporations “navigate through the maze of ever-changing laws and regulations, governmental red tape and business bureaucracies.” It’s no longer registered as a lobbying firm, but when it was, its clients included solar energy companies.

Here’s the interesting detail about her consulting work, from the firm’s website:

The Whitman Strategy Group was hired by a company that was considering investing in an air quality consulting firm. They turned to WSG to help them identify the long-term value of this consulting firm….

In a very short timeframe, WSG prepared a detailed summary of key federal policy and regulatory trends and observations related to clean air, including various scenarios dependent upon Presidential and Congressional election results, with a horizon of 5 years. We also engaged with the company’s Board of Directors to discuss our results and answer various questions. Our forecasting report played a significant part in the company’s decision to move forward and purchase the air quality consulting firm.

In brief, a Whitman client started a business that profits only when the EPA uses the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

This isn't a capitulation on the part of "key Republicans".. It's a made for media PR campaign to promote causes that these former administrators are now engaged in...

Don't you ardent leftists usually check for CORPORATE COLLUSION before you accept a propaganda move such as this???

"This isn't a capitulation on the part of "key Republicans""

Republicans have shown no signs of the ethics or intelligence required to learn and adjust to the truth. None.

It doesn't matter though. We know that now and have democracy to just move them out of the way.

Business people, some of which are undoubtably republican, are moving their political brethren aside and pursuing the opportunity that retooling our entire energy infrastructure entails.

Nobody cares about the obsolete political hacks and science quacks still waiting for perfect risk free certainty.

 

[PMZ]

Help a guy out willya

Someone asked me to show them an experiment that shows a temperature increase from adding 200ppm of CO2 and I can't find anything, where did you go for the proof of the Global Warming hypothesis

Like all science, the most reliable experiment would be to wait and see.

But, also like most science, waiting to see would probably be the most costly approach because by the time we saw, we would have no choices left. We'd be stuck with what we saw.

So, like most science we look for ways to model the system mathematically so that we can have insight to the problem, so that we can manage it, to a less costly consequence.

Here's how such an scientific approach has worked in the field of AGW.

There is the big picture and there are the details. All have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

So we have science. Certain about the big picture. Unable to build multi year weather models. We have data that support the reliability of the models that can be built. We have a global organization of qualified experts to do the science.

Then we have the politics. Never certain. Always chaotic. Full of charlatans.

Then we have doers, engineers, investors, problem solvers. They are out of the gate and more join everyday. They don't wait for risk free certainty. They look for opportunity.

So, things are unfolding as they should.

Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?

There are many experiments and much science and tons of data here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Frankly, you will not understand any of it.

Sorry.

 

[PMZ]

Help a guy out willya

Someone asked me to show them an experiment that shows a temperature increase from adding 200ppm of CO2 and I can't find anything, where did you go for the proof of the Global Warming hypothesis

Like all science, the most reliable experiment would be to wait and see.

But, also like most science, waiting to see would probably be the most costly approach because by the time we saw, we would have no choices left. We'd be stuck with what we saw.

So, like most science we look for ways to model the system mathematically so that we can have insight to the problem, so that we can manage it, to a less costly consequence.

Here's how such an scientific approach has worked in the field of AGW.

There is the big picture and there are the details. All have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

So we have science. Certain about the big picture. Unable to build multi year weather models. We have data that support the reliability of the models that can be built. We have a global organization of qualified experts to do the science.

Then we have the politics. Never certain. Always chaotic. Full of charlatans.

Then we have doers, engineers, investors, problem solvers. They are out of the gate and more join everyday. They don't wait for risk free certainty. They look for opportunity.

So, things are unfolding as they should.

Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?

I fell out of my chair when I read this.

"If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab."

The universe in a test tube.

Just add AGW to the extensive list of things that are beyond your capability.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like all science, the most reliable experiment would be to wait and see.

But, also like most science, waiting to see would probably be the most costly approach because by the time we saw, we would have no choices left. We'd be stuck with what we saw.

So, like most science we look for ways to model the system mathematically so that we can have insight to the problem, so that we can manage it, to a less costly consequence.

Here's how such an scientific approach has worked in the field of AGW.

There is the big picture and there are the details. All have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

So we have science. Certain about the big picture. Unable to build multi year weather models. We have data that support the reliability of the models that can be built. We have a global organization of qualified experts to do the science.

Then we have the politics. Never certain. Always chaotic. Full of charlatans.

Then we have doers, engineers, investors, problem solvers. They are out of the gate and more join everyday. They don't wait for risk free certainty. They look for opportunity.

So, things are unfolding as they should.

Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?

There are many experiments and much science and tons of data here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Frankly, you will not understand any of it.

Sorry.

IPCC, that's the "redistribute wealth via Climate policy" group, right?

Why would you make me do your work for you? If the experiment is in there, why don't you dig it out?

 

[gslack]

Frank, the experiment isn't there don't bother.. He doesn't know what such an experiment would be, and by now he has been busted faking it so often,he fears doing another stupid thing..

He won't provide you with an experiment, even if he could, all he will do is try and divert with a lie about a link, hoping noone checks it.. It does this a lot..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like all science, the most reliable experiment would be to wait and see.

But, also like most science, waiting to see would probably be the most costly approach because by the time we saw, we would have no choices left. We'd be stuck with what we saw.

So, like most science we look for ways to model the system mathematically so that we can have insight to the problem, so that we can manage it, to a less costly consequence.

Here's how such an scientific approach has worked in the field of AGW.

There is the big picture and there are the details. All have to be satisfied.

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur.

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat.

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting.

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved.

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now.

That's the state of science now.

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled.

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong.

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis.

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit.

So we have science. Certain about the big picture. Unable to build multi year weather models. We have data that support the reliability of the models that can be built. We have a global organization of qualified experts to do the science.

Then we have the politics. Never certain. Always chaotic. Full of charlatans.

Then we have doers, engineers, investors, problem solvers. They are out of the gate and more join everyday. They don't wait for risk free certainty. They look for opportunity.

So, things are unfolding as they should.

Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?

I fell out of my chair when I read this.

"If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab."

The universe in a test tube.

Just add AGW to the extensive list of things that are beyond your capability.

When you get back in your chair walk me through your theory...

A 200 ppm increase in CO2 is increasing the temperature, is that the theory

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[PMZ]

Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?

I fell out of my chair when I read this.

"If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab."

The universe in a test tube.

Just add AGW to the extensive list of things that are beyond your capability.

When you get back in your chair walk me through your theory...

A 200 ppm increase in CO2 is increasing the temperature, is that the theory

I have described the theory, the data, the experimental evidence, etc in a nutshell. You show no evidence of understanding any of it.

Don't worry, many don't. Perhaps you should stick to non scientific pursuits.

 

[gslack]

I fell out of my chair when I read this.

"If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab."

The universe in a test tube.

Just add AGW to the extensive list of things that are beyond your capability.

When you get back in your chair walk me through your theory...

A 200 ppm increase in CO2 is increasing the temperature, is that the theory

I have described the theory, the data, the experimental evidence, etc in a nutshell. You show no evidence of understanding any of it.

Don't worry, many don't. Perhaps you should stick to non scientific pursuits.

Stop being a punk... he asked you for a repeatable verfifiable experiment socko, if you can't provide one than man up and say so..

 

[PMZ]

When you get back in your chair walk me through your theory...

A 200 ppm increase in CO2 is increasing the temperature, is that the theory

I have described the theory, the data, the experimental evidence, etc in a nutshell. You show no evidence of understanding any of it.

Don't worry, many don't. Perhaps you should stick to non scientific pursuits.

Stop being a punk... he asked you for a repeatable verfifiable experiment socko, if you can't provide one than man up and say so..

He doesn't seem any more capable of understanding it than you are. If you think that there is nothing that exists that you don't understand you are the worst kind of fools.

 

[PMZ]

Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?

There are many experiments and much science and tons of data here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Frankly, you will not understand any of it.

Sorry.

IPCC, that's the "redistribute wealth via Climate policy" group, right?

Why would you make me do your work for you? If the experiment is in there, why don't you dig it out?

The IPCC is a science group helping in the search for the least expensive global energy future. Republicans are a political group trying to impose the most expensive global energy future on the world through ignorance.

 

[PMZ]

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

Now the law states that, "Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einstein's equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy."

"Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured."

The bottom line of all these statements is the same from the perspective of systems earth. Energy from the sun, once it enters the earth system, warms whatever media it encounters until the temperature of all systems, over time, is high enough to energize the incoming heat to break through whatever barriers that exist, and radiate off into space. Then equilibrium is restored. No exceptions. It's just how thermodynamics works.

This plus the nature of greenhouse gasses plus the fact that burning fossil fuels causes the release of GHGs into earth's atmosphere make AGW scientifically inevitable and inarguable. There is no other possibility.

But, that's not the problem.

The problem is the change in weather caused by AGW, from the climate that we built civilization around.

So, the more we burn fossil fuels, the greater AGW will inevitably be, the greater will be the changes to the weather we have adapted to, and the greater will be the cost of adapting to the new climate. The greater the cost of adapting to the new climate, the more compelling is the urgency to limit AGW by converting our energy infrastructure to sustainable ASAP.

It's all economics. Minimizing the total cost.

We are, of course, spending billions each year already on changing our energy infrastructure to sustainable. But the current evidence shows that what we are spending is not the least expensive path. A significantly higher rate will save us total cost.

So the decision. Spend more of our resources now to save future generations what might well be for them unaffordable.

Step up to the plate.

Will we be responsible enough at this critical time?

Conservatives say no. Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend ignorance.

Liberals say yes. It's not only responsible but ripe with economic opportunity.

What do you say?

 

[gslack]

Stop being a punk... he asked you for a repeatable verfifiable experiment socko, if you can't provide one than man up and say so..

He doesn't seem any more capable of understanding it than you are. If you think that there is nothing that exists that you don't understand you are the worst kind of fools.

So then you can't provide one.. Not a shock... Come now, you can say it... Say you're sorry socko....

 

[gslack]

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

Now the law states that, "Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einstein's equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy."

"Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured."

The bottom line of all these statements is the same from the perspective of systems earth. Energy from the sun, once it enters the earth system, warms whatever media it encounters until the temperature of all systems, over time, is high enough to energize the incoming heat to break through whatever barriers that exist, and radiate off into space. Then equilibrium is restored. No exceptions. It's just how thermodynamics works.

This plus the nature of greenhouse gasses plus the fact that burning fossil fuels causes the release of GHGs into earth's atmosphere make AGW scientifically inevitable and inarguable. There is no other possibility.

But, that's not the problem.

The problem is the change in weather caused by AGW, from the climate that we built civilization around.

So, the more we burn fossil fuels, the greater AGW will inevitably be, the greater will be the changes to the weather we have adapted to, and the greater will be the cost of adapting to the new climate. The greater the cost of adapting to the new climate, the more compelling is the urgency to limit AGW by converting our energy infrastructure to sustainable ASAP.

It's all economics. Minimizing the total cost.

We are, of course, spending billions each year already on changing our energy infrastructure to sustainable. But the current evidence shows that what we are spending is not the least expensive path. A significantly higher rate will save us total cost.

So the decision. Spend more of our resources now to save future generations what might well be for them unaffordable.

Step up to the plate.

Will we be responsible enough at this critical time?

Conservatives say no. Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend ignorance.

Liberals say yes. It's not only responsible but ripe with economic opportunity.

What do you say?

LOL, you really shouldn't plagarize socko... What's worse adding your own incorrect assumptions into the material only makes it worse... I hope the author you stole from is understanding...

You got it from this site, most of it verbatim. Except where you took artistic license like the "by ordinary means" and other tidbits of ignorance...

SAVE YOUR ENERGY | UNIVERSE NEWS

Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einstein’s equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy.
Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured.

look familiar? it should you copied it without attribution.. I know it's no coincidence, it's nearly verbatim, and the thing only turns upin one place...

Nice work socko. Can't do your own work so you steal others.. Pathetic...

 

[PMZ]

Slackjaw, do you know what " " means?

 

[westwall]

Stop being a punk... he asked you for a repeatable verfifiable experiment socko, if you can't provide one than man up and say so..

He doesn't seem any more capable of understanding it than you are. If you think that there is nothing that exists that you don't understand you are the worst kind of fools.

Oh no, we understand the science part quite well. Enough to understand that your "experiments" that you all love to post are actually real good demonstrations of the Ideal Gas Laws but have nothing to do with your "theory".

 

[gslack]

Slackjaw, do you know what " " means?

Sure I do,but adding "" to something isn't an attribution. There is no link to a source, not even a mention of it's source. You couldn't even give the dude that actually wrote it any credit?

You know what ya did socko, you stole someone else's work and tried to pass it off as your own.. You posted it twice now, and not once did you give the writer any credit or mention..

As if you needed less credibility..

 

[PMZ]

Here's the question. Will Rush's army of Internet trolls slow down the progress on sustainable energy?

Here's the answer.

Not in the least.

Why.

There are many people educationally inadequate to understand any number of scientific pursuits.

Mankind has never waited for them. Neither will we.

 

[gslack]

Here's the question. Will Rush's army of Internet trolls slow down the progress on sustainable energy?

Here's the answer.

Not in the least.

Why.

There are many people educationally inadequate to understand any number of scientific pursuits.

Mankind has never waited for them. Neither will we.

I got a better question... Will ifitzpmz continue to plagarize, lie, and post like a crackhead?