Jump to content
Science Forums

billvon

Members
  • Content Count

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25
  1. Right. But when you can't get chlorine or spare parts - will you be able to keep the system running?
  2. Yep. And that ATM connects to the net via a protocol called PPP (look it up.) Then it authorizes your money withdrawal. There's really no tube that goes from the bank to your ATM. It goes through the network. It may be a very captive and very well protected network - but it functions like every other network out there in the vast matrix we call the Internet. Nope. They monitor loads and generation via SCADA (look it up.) And that communicates via the network. "Learn to electricity?" When mocking someone, it helps to not look like someone who can't even manage grade school grammar.
  3. OK. What would you pay for? The stores rely on the Internet to schedule deliveries, pay for deliveries and track deliveries. No Internet, no deliveries. At least until they resurrect a decades-old paper based system, which will take weeks at the very least. And where would you get the money? Cash machines rely on the Internet to check your balance and give you your money. Do you have a stash of them in your house? They haven't made any in years. The Internet now enables the power grid, traffic lights, water pumping, freight deliveries and cash machines (to name just a few thing
  4. Would be hard to see how that would happen without taking out everything (i.e. electricity, all computers.) It's inherently fault tolerant and will route around outages. If there's even one link left between two subnets the data will still get through (with horrendous delays of course.) But if it did it would certainly cause at least a recession, if not a full on depression. Business would slow to a crawl.
  5. We'd replace it pretty quickly. Much of our commerce, our medical care, our transportation, our infrastructure etc now depends on it.
  6. The source you post does not state that it has an overall cooling effect. Your source stated that the cloud formation models they use have more error than they expected. They did NOT show clouds have an overall cooling effect. From the source you posted: "consistent biases in DCC between present and future climates give rise to similar TOA reference irradiance, so that the model tuning made for current climate conditions still remains largely effective for the global mean temperature projections. " In other words, they do not affect current predictions for temperature increases. They do, h
  7. No, it doesn't. In fact, the very study you posted says that it "does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming." You may disagree (that's fine) but in that case you'd have to explain why you now disagree with a source you yourself just posted. And that is why no one takes you seriously. I make a post and link to four sources for my opinions, including two from the journal Nature. The very best intellectual response you can come up with is "turd head."
  8. Nope. We simply don't know yet. For example, Kate Marvel and Joel Morris have done a lot of work on cloud formation; their research shows that warming is causing two effects - clouds are shifting towards the poles (on average) and are getting higher (on average.) Both are positive feedback effects; both trap more heat than they reflect. Clouds over the pole reflect very little light because there's not much sunlight up there; they reflect IR as well as they always do. Similarly, higher clouds reflect sunlight as well as they usually do, but are better at trapping heat. (More/warmer air
  9. Eye of the hurricane! Listen to yourself churn. The world serves its own needs, regardless of your own needs. Speed it up a notch! Speed, grunt - no strength. The ladder starts to clatter with a fear of heights. Down, right? A wire in the fire represents the seven games - and a government for hire and a combat site. He left her, she wasn't coming in a hurry with the Furies breathing down your neck. Feeling pretty psyched yet?
  10. Excellent. Progress! Good for you for reconsidering previous (incorrect) claims based on new evidence. Let's hope this trend continues.
  11. That's great! It starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes and airplanes, but Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
  12. Yes, clouds on the sun side have a net cooling effect. Clouds on the dark side have a net warming effect. Most estimates I have seen indicate that they are approximately equal. If you want to say that the cooling effect dominates, fine. If it does, it's not by much. However, again, you are talking about clouds, not water vapor. Water vapor has a very strong warming effect overall, and is the primary greenhouse gas in our atmosphere (see original post.) Perhaps if you stopped imagining what my positions were, you would confuse yourself a little less. And I have posted evidence sho
  13. No. I am saying there is a warming AND cooling effect due to water vapor. Warming due to its reflection of IR radiation; cooling due to higher albedo of clouds. Nope. But feel free to keep guessing. Volcanic activity is pretty average right now. If anything, over the past 100 years (the timescale of climate change) it has increased. http://currents.plos.org/disasters/article/the-human-impact-of-volcanoes-a-historical-review-of-events-1900-2009-and-systematic-literature-review/ See above. It's funny how so many climate change denier arguments end with the denier screaming
  14. Not when it's on the night side. Next time you are in the desert see if it's colder at night when there are clouds vs. a wide open sky. Now, if there are more daytime clouds than nighttime clouds you could claim that it has a cooling effect. Is that the case? Not so far. Will it be the case in the future? Perhaps. Which is why prediction isn't always 100% accurate. Yep. And we put out megatons. Now volcanic activity is DECREASING and it's causing climate change? Honestly at this point it's like you are just throwing random denials at the wall to see what sticks.
  15. Well, if we are making up random associations here - You, and your denier friends like Willie Soon have already shown to be frauds, so that's easy. (He has retired in disgrace after admitting he accepted over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to deny climate change.) Follow the money.
×
×
  • Create New...