Citing Evo1: "but at higher levels (CO2)it is in fact extremely toxic and does lead to several deaths every year, particularly in children..." with due respect, that kind of affirmation is plainly wrong. CO2 is NOT toxic per se, it is the displacement of O2 by excess CO2 that can produce Hipoxia in a closed, overcrowded room. but CO2 is NOT a poison as CO (Carbon Monoxide) that is the one that is poisonous because it causes hemoglobin to become unable to carry Oxygen.
Your assumption that "CO2 does lead to several deaths every year, particularly in children..." is completely false as there is absolutely no evidence of children deaths caused specifically by CO2 inhalation in ventilated spaces.
You would be extremely surprised to know that CO2 has even been purposefully used in the manufacture of Carbogen, a mixture of Oxygen AND CO2, because the CO2 causes the body to try to battle suffocation and stimulates the recovery when the individual has suffered poisoning by Carbon Monoxide. It is interesting that Carbogen mixtures for asphyxia treatment include a full 5% of CO" and 95% Oxygen, when the normal atmospheric content of CO2 is well under 400 parts per million, volume... go figure! Only in densely packed, closed, underventilated spaces, it can become suffocating, but not poisonous. (ten times the normal atmospheric concentration is commonly reached).
Those are the kind of false claims that cloud polemic subject discussion and prevent a clear understanding of the true phenomena (if it happens).
William K, all of those issues are well understood and your assertions are hilariously wrong. Where do you get that we've reached equilibrium? 0.01%?? More CO2 is needed???
Solar output is very well known and it has slightly decreased, not increased. The effect of adding 50% more CO2 (excess), which we've done since the start of the industrial age through the burning of fossil fuels (and also deforestation), is to upset the energy equilibrium by holding more solar radiation energy in the atmosphere, not the opposite.
I attacked your grammar after I attacked your idiotic question (which is not the same thing as calling you an idiot--I am not doing that, so please don't get confused). All of your grade school teachers should have attacked any such misuse. The word "at" is redundant. Would you say "Where are my keys at"? Not a federal offense, of course, but it sounds funny and doesn't help your case to argue bad science and then write like a fourth-grader.
Choosing to not cite any examples of wrong conclusions drawn from "obvious patterns" is poor science! Stick to the subject and post where global warming science is wrong, thus supporting your concern for poor discussion on the part of the anti-denier side.
So, your job is to peruse the published literature to show that there are indeed two sides to this debate. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that the deniers don't like are the implications that anthropogenic global wamring poses, that our behavior can produce negative consequences that therefore refutes both religious theologies and economic ideologies that claim that a) the universe was crated expressly for our use and therefore cannot fail, per god's plan, (b) the market solves all problems, or (c) we are too insignificant to affect an entire planet.
Their problem is not with the science per se, but with the implications of that science.
Sorry, but any polarization that you perceive is due to the deniers simply not accepting data. There aren't two sides with regards to global warming as the deniers who have nothing to back their denial up with don't count.
The only example of bad research is seen when a person either performs research that contradicts another's or writes to the publication to present his or her refutation to published research.
Aside from the large roar of emotional screaming, I have been wondering about the possiboe change that might have occured in the amount of heat being delivered by the sun. Considering that most of the heat energy on this planet does come from the sun, it is obvious that the amount is quite large. Now consider that the planet is also losing a large amount of heat energy, and that over the past thousand or so years has reached some sort of equilibrium point. Now, if the energy input were to increase by 0.01%, how far would that equilibrium point shift, and how long would that shift take? Based on my understanding of process themal kinetics, my guess is that it would take a while, and based on my understanding of instrumentation, it is not likely that any measurements accurate enough to allow a determination that the energy input has changed that small amount could have been made long ago enough to allow any valid conclusions. But now my question is about how anybody is going to do anything about any changes in the solar energy impacting the earth. One method might be to increase the amount of carbon dioxide, which may tend to reflect the energy back into space.
My other thought is to repeat that old axium, "Correlation DOES NOT equal causation". Many engineers understand this, while many in the media don't even understand what it may mean.
My position is that we, as professionals of the engineering branchs, have the ethical obligation to use our knowledge and skills to adopt a responsible position...
You have failed your principles. Neither you nor your hero Mr. Rutan are climate scientists. You are both disqualified from having authority to challenge real climate scientists who have analyzed and dismissed all your weak challenges. You may have an opinion, but it is based in ignorance and probably other conflicts of interest as well, as you probably don't want anyone telling you what to do with your unearned privilege of having a fossil fuel-heavy lifestyle. Typical addict denial, probably heavily influenced by hatred and fear of "big government intrusions."
--What temperature is the earth supposed to be at?
--P.S. Is your grammar always as bad as your scientific observations?
Charles, I see you've chosen to attack my grammar. I suppose that you're refering to above quote as an example. While English is my first language, I'm not an English teacher. So please enlighten me as to what my error is. I'd be glad to learn.
"Another non sequitur. It has never warmed this quickly and it's never happened with 7 billion exposed to the effects and such warming (or cooling) has never before been caused by human activity. Hmmm, why would you ask such a meaningless question?"
Never? I'd suggest that you neither have proof nor even good data to point to such a supposition. If you do, I'd be happy to review it.
As to why? It has all the meaning in the world. If you claim that we are causing the earth to do something that it otherwise wouldn't, shouldn't we be able to quantify the difference?
Do you not accept that the Earth's weather and climate would change even if humans (or some other intelligent species) weren't here? Based on the available science, there's good reason to believe that it did so before humanity arrived on the stage. There is also good reason to believe that the change has been both gradual and relatively sudden. Humans have only been on this planet for a comparitive "blink of an eye". We have only been "industrialized" for a comparitive blink of a blink. To ignore all all history before humans were present is rather short-sighted, don't you think?
So I am asking for you to quantify what is "unnatural"?
The 3D printing revolution seems to have a knack for quickly moving technology ahead by way of collaborative effort and even a little friendly competition -- all of course in the name of scientific advancement.
Advantech has launched a new series of motion-control I/O modules to meet the increased demands that come with more distributed industrial systems that require control of a growing number of axes and devices.
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is