Climate Change

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Of course not, the US government's work on thermonuclear warhead design isn't copyrighted.

1. We conclude that you must have you've seen it...
2. All copyright & patent supporters are shocked! To quote one:

"B-B-B-but that m-m-m-means anybody can simply copy the p-p-p-plans and build H-bombs!! Even without the consent of the People's and the Peoples' Republic of America!!! We gotta do something!!!! Help!!!!!! We must invade Canada!!!!!"

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

1. We conclude that you must have you've seen it...

A brief examination of this article: "Work of the United States Government" seems in order.

I don't need to see the plans for a bomb to know wheather the US Gubment laws regarding copyright apply. It can still be classified "Top Secret" and still not have a copyright. As in another thread, control of access to the information is often better than a patent or copyright.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

1. We conclude that you must have you've seen it...
2. All copyright & patent supporters are shocked! To quote one:

"B-B-B-but that m-m-m-means anybody can simply copy the p-p-p-plans and build H-bombs!! Even without the consent of the People's and the Peoples' Republic of America!!! We gotta do something!!!! Help!!!!!! We must invade Canada!!!!!"

Oh dear, it looks like you're losing your faculties. I'm sure you wouldn't have made such an elementary mistake in logic a few days ago.

Or have you been on the hemlock?


Paul

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

A brief examination of this article: "Work of the United States Government" seems in order.

I don't need to see the plans for a bomb to know wheather the US Gubment laws regarding copyright apply. It can still be classified "Top Secret" and still not have a copyright. As in another thread, control of access to the information is often better than a patent or copyright.

Yeah!

And the moral of the story is: if you don't want your work copied, treat it as if it were "Top Secret".

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by xilman

Oh dear, it looks like you're losing your faculties.

He used to see things black and white, now he has turned yellar.

He just wants everyone to wuv him and hug him and kiss him.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Yeah!

Ah, so you agree with me, that your first assesment that CRGreatHouse had seen the bomb plans was incorrect. Now we are getting somewhere. You are starting to see the flaws in your own logic.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by xilman

Oh dear, it looks like you're losing your faculties.

Nah, I'm only wearing my underpants on my head and stuck two pencils up my nose...like they used to do in the Sudan. So, Goodbyeee for now.

[cheesehead]

"Stumbling Over Data: Mistakes Fuel Climate-Warming Skeptics"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ling-over-data

However, be sure to read the comments at

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...age=2#comments

There's some harsh criticism. I don't know how much of it is plausible, but too many defenders there are using ad hominem.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The main question I have for knowledgeable AGW skeptics now is:

Since:

(a) the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has been significantly increasing (decades of measurements at Mauna Kea),

(b) those measurements seem consistent with estimates of both anthropogenic CO₂ emissions and rates of natural (nonanthropogenic) CO₂ sources/sinks, and

(c) AFAIK there's no significant controversy about (a) and (b),

just how could all that increase in CO₂ not be having a warming effect (AGW) in addition to whatever natural (nonanthropogenic) cycles are doing?

Then I have follow-on questions depending on the answer to that one.

[cheesehead]

I've stumbled upon a site with good explanations about global warming evidence and answers to many AGW questions:

"Global Warming: Man or Myth, the Science of Climate Change"

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

It explains so many pieces of evidence and answers so many common questions and arguments that I intend to try developing a habit^* of linking to one of the pages here rather than composing my own ill-informed answers.

- -

Another promising site is:

"How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic : A Few Things Ill Considered"

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere..._a_sceptic.php

But I haven't examined as much of it as the former.

- - -

^* I need to do that for some other areas of interest, too. I've gotten inefficient and disorganized while depressed. Gotta change that.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I've stumbled upon a site with good[blah, blah, blah]

Read:

It's from .edu!!!! It must be science!!!! It states that GW is real!!!! Therefore, GW is a threat to mankind!!!!! And were all going to catch on fire tomorrow, if we don't do something NOW!!!!!!

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Another promising site is:[blah, blah, blah]

Aha!!!! Those evil skeptics!!!!!! How dare they disagree with chi-by-eye!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by cheesehead

[Blah, blah, URL, blah]There's some harsh criticism. I don't know how much of it is plausible, but too many defenders there are using ad hominem.

What????? Global Warming Alarmists never use ad hominem attacks!!!!!!! That would be unscientific!!!!!! Heretic!!!! Were doomed!!!!!!!!!!!!! Help!!!! Help!!!!! Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The main question I have for knowledgeable AGW skeptics now is:

Since:

(a) the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has been significantly increasing (decades of measurements at Mauna Kea),

(b) those measurements seem consistent with estimates of both anthropogenic CO₂ emissions and rates of natural (nonanthropogenic) CO₂ sources/sinks, and

(c) AFAIK there's no significant controversy about (a) and (b),

just how could all that increase in CO₂ not be having a warming effect (AGW) in addition to whatever natural (nonanthropogenic) cycles are doing?

Complex nonlinear systems can behave in surprising ways. "How could [more CO2] + [CO2 traps heat] not lead to [planet gets hotter?]" Any number of ways - not in order of plausibility, but simply to show a couple ways things *could* behave in a fashion contrary to what mere CO2 concentration would lead one to believe:

1) Other correlates of anthropogenic CO2 increase have a cooling effect: Smog particles reflecting sunlight back into space, increased warmth leading to increasing cloud cover and having a similar effect, warmer boreal regions turning into active CO2 sinks, etc.

2) We've had episodes of massive global warming before: At documented times in the past, earth was significantly warmer and even more CO2-rich than at present (e.g. during the era when Antarctica was warm enough to allow dinosaurs to live there). And yet, rather than suffer the same runaway-greenhouse fate as Venus, Earth always "recovered" from those warm spells and even went in the opposite direction, during the ice ages of the past several million years. How? The IPCC seems strangely silent on this, though I expect they might counter with a things-are-different-now "during the mesozoic, there was no human population cutting down the earth's forests, so the extra CO2 drove a wave of lush plant growth which mopped up the excess CO2 and then some" hand-waving explanation. Or perhaps "it's all due to Milankovitch cycles and variable solar output, and none of those factors are enough to explain the recent warming".

3) Multiple climate-system equilibria and "tipping point" effects: It's well-documented that massive influxes of fresh water from global warming have on occasion shut down the NADW circulation (a.k.a. "what keeps Europe much warmer than it should be") - a clear example where at small amplitudes (modest warming) things trend the way linear extrapolation predicts, but further forcing leads to nonlinear effects which are wildly different than linear theory predicts.

Note that I'm not saying any of the above counterintuitive phenomena are currently occurring or likely to occur in the near future as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but you asked for "how could", so I gave a few such.