Any brevity on the part of the doubters (I'm not even sure you're correct about that) is more than made up by the number of threads they initiate and their repetition of already presented material. If the AGW side is more long winded perhaps it's because there is so much more material for them to reference. Of course no one is forcing you to read posts.
And nothing about electronics, which was the whole point of your complaint above :-)
-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
Actually, yes. We're changing the layout in a lot of ways, tightening things up, cutting away some ground plane in strategic spots, and nailing a LOT of vias into those guard traces.
All this electromagnetics stuff is a nuisance. Makes you wish Maxwell had been a plumber or something.
Really? Please explain, *in detail*, how one derives a "this is anthropogenic" or "this is not anthropogenic" signal from any of the above-referenced temerature measurements. It sure looks to me like a standard thermometer record that tells you the temperature, not the cause of the temperature.
schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com...
Giving you a detailed explanation of the procedure would require that you enrolled for a science course at a respectable university.
If you knew enough physics to follow a detailed explanation, you wouldn't have asked the question.
The answer that you might be equipped to understand is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and if there is more of it in the atmosphere, the earth gets warmer.
We can measure how much of it is in the atmosphere - and we've been doing that at Mauna Loa for some fifty years now - and it is going up, and the earth is getting warmer.
We know that we are injecting some 20 gigatons of carbon dioxide inot the atmosphere every year, and we know that half of that is staying in the atmosphere, which explains why the CO2 level in the atmosphere is going up, and why the C-14 content of the atmospher is going down (Suess effect).
So there is global warming, and we are causing it.
Not all the warming we are seeing comes from the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are other greenhouse gases, notably methane, ozone and water. We are driving up the methane levels as well, but we have reduced the ozone concentrations, though not nearly enough to reverse global warming.
The water vapour content of the atmosphere is pretty much determined by the surface temperatures of the oceans, with a time constant of about ten days, so the relatively small forcing due to carbon dioxide and methane produces additional forcing by increasing the water vapour levels in the atmosphere, an example of positive feedback.
Many professors of physics reject your theory. I assume that they have completed science courses at respectable universities.
In other words, the URLs you reference do not support your "anthropogenic" claim. They just show temperature change, which supports a conclusion of global warming, not a conclusion of *anthropogenic* global warming as you claimed above. Got it.
The CO2 level *lags* the temperature change, and thus cannot possibly be the *cause* of the temperature change. Look it up.
You are assuming cauation when all you have is correlation. There exists a strong correlation between increased solar activity and global warming, and you have not ruled out that being the cause. (It hasn't been proven to *be* the cause, but the fact that Mars sees global warming and cooling cycles at the same time that the earth does is rather suggestive of causation.)
Here is a 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis:
150-dpi PDF:
formatting link
300-dpi PDF:
formatting link
600-dpi PDF:
formatting link
Multi-page HTML:
formatting link
Figures alone in powerpoint:
formatting link
Figures alone in flash:
formatting link
The factual information cited in the above article references the underlying research literature, in this case the 132 peer-reviewed references listed at the end of the article. The review article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.
I would be most interested in your response to Figures 2 and 3:
formatting link
formatting link
Figures 1 and 4 are also instructive:
formatting link
formatting link
Again, I apologize if I am offending your religious beliefs.
"I suspect that the politicians and businessmen who are jumping on the environment bandwagon don't have the slightest idea of what they are getting into. They are talking about emission control devices on automobiles, while we are talking about bans on automobiles." -Dennis Hayes, Earth Day Agenda
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects ... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land." - David Foreman, Earth First!
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." -Richard Benedict, State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." -Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project "As radical environmentalists, we can see AIDS not as a problem, but as a necessary solution." -Earth First! Journal
The CO2 level in the atmosphere lagged the temperature change in the ice core data, because the temperature changes involved were caused by the Milankovich effect - which on its own - produces rather small temperature changes
formatting link
which seems to have been amplfied by various positive feedbacks, one of which is the transfer of carbon dioxide out of the slowly warming oceans into the atmosphere.
We are injecting extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning coal and oil, and this is the cause of our global warming, not an effect, so carbon dioxide levels and not lagging behind the temperature change that they are causing.
Read about it - and do try an avoid being suckered by nonsense from some Exxon-Mobil funded denialist web-site.
Wrong.
Since we don't have any evidence for any signficant changes in solar output. your "explanation" depends on an imagined effect. Your claim about "global warming" on Mars is nonsense. Again, it is rubbish you have picked up from a denialist web-site. The argument has been comprehensively dismantled on a number of web-sites.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.