quote: Electromagnetic radiation in space is a field. It is not a wave. Changes in that radiation propagate as a wave in that field but the radiation itself. Anyone care to tell me why I'm wrong?
Well I guess the fact that it is called the wave model of light might clue you in to the fact that it deals with light as a wave. The fact that it is the waves that propagate - like the radiation - might be a further clue. So should the fact that the radiation behaves like a wave.
Faraday proposed the idea, Maxwell developed it and Herz confirmed it experimentally.
To be perfectly honest, don't you think you might be doing the paper a disservice by trying to defend it without understanding it?
I might also ask, what makes you think that the electromagnetic field, and the disturbances in it, cannot exist in empty space?
Are you actually sure that an increase of only 0.045% of solar radiation directly reaching the surface rather than being caught in the upper atmosphere is sufficient ?
Even assuming that the figures are correct, surely some of that energy caught by the ozone layer would have radiated downwards as heat.
And you will pardon me questioning the accuracy of figures when you use units of watts per second, which is rather obviously wrong. Perhaps, if you quote the correct figures - with the correct units, a comparison could be made
quote:I've heard the same thing about deadwood. I've heard that if allowed to decay on its own over long periods of time, it gives off exactly the same amount of heat as it does when burned quickly by humans for warmth. Yet when looking at countless websites advocating the government banning of wood burning stoves, I never see any of them trying to distinguish between cutting and burning live, green wood versus burning dead wood. It almost seems like there's more interest in BANNING, than there is in any concern for the actual science
It’s pretty clear that you are only interested in objecting to the ban and not at all in the science. The heat is not the issue, it’s the particulates in the wood smoke.
quote:I just pointed out that they were not related, after you implied that they were
I didn’t imply any such thing. I pointed that the restrictions on wood-burning stoves were about particulate emissions. After you ignorantly rambled about heat emissions and complained that other people didn’t care about the science. I didn’t mention global warming at all.
Obviously you thought that the restrictions on wood burning stoves were supposedly about global warming. And you were ignorant and wrong.
quote:TDR (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is getting more contagious here than coronavirus in Washington state.
And what has that to do with your scientific ignorance?
quote:The scientific community's effects are constitutionally required to be controlled by a political process
Again we see your totalitarian impulses.
The Tenth Amendment, unfortunately for you, is about the rights of the States and limits on the Federal Government. It does not empower the Federal Government to dictate what scientists study, nor the conclusions they reach.
Surprise, surprise when I look at the link, Marc is quote mining again.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
Marc doesn’t say that the first method is utterly rejected, as to the second - the real point of the Amendment is to protect against the tyranny of the majority:
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression
Political control of science would be a scheme of oppression, exactly what Federalist Paper 10 is against.
That your assertion was completely wrong? That’s fortunate for you?
quote:Because it does not allow the conclusions the scientific community reaches to be unlimited in the amount of liberty and money it proposes to strip from the people.
It doesn’t forbid the scientific community from finding out truths you want suppressed, which is the real point. In fact it doesn’t forbid the scientific community from doing anything, because they aren’t the Federal Government.
quote:So the government is MORE LIMITED if we let the scientific community by-pass the constitution and join with big government advocates and take away as many of our freedoms and as much of our money as it wants?
Let us correct the silly misrepresentation.
“So the government is MORE LIMITED if we don’t rewrite the Constitution to let the Federal Government take political control of any faction it likes. Controlling everything they say or do.” Which is where you were going with your dishonest quote-mine of Federalist Papers 10
Scientists, of course do not make the decisions on policy. That is a political role and always has been. So you don’t have anything to complain about there, or is there any by-passing of the Constitution.
As for loss of freedom, the totalitarian control you propose is a massive loss of freedom and a massive increase in Government power. Obviously you don’t object to either. What you do object to is people having freedoms you don’t like. Like the freedom to find out that your creationist beliefs are false and say so.
A report from the Commodities Future Trading Commission indicates the climate change is already affecting markets.
Regulators "must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the US financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks."
The report, called "Managing Climate Risk in the US Financial System," was written by a group of 35 advisors from major banks such as Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Ceres, energy firms such as BP and ConocoPhillips, several investment firms, and experts from several universities.
They conclude that the markets are failing to take climate change into account, even though the effects are already causing problems.
They argue that it will take international action to control the problem and urge that the US rejoin the Paris Agreement.
With the Trump administration taking the opposite tack, will the voices of sanity speak up? Or will the Republicans continue their slavish devotion to Trump?