Dak

no, re-read what i said carefully. you cannot assume that 24% of GW is caused by CO2, then deduce from that that 9% of GW is caused by CO2, and still consider your logic valid. in logic, you cannot go: a (logical deduction) therefore not-a which is essentially what you're doing, as "CO2 causes 9% of GW" is not-"CO2 causes 24% of GW" or, alternatively, your argument is 'CO2 causes 24% of GW, therefore CO2 does not cause 24% of GW'. do you see where i'm coming from now? please explain exactly what you mean by your starting assumption of "24% of GW comes from CO2"

yes, but, afaict what you are doing is this: let us assume that CO2 contributes 24% of GW (maths) therefore, we can conclude that CO2 contributes 9% of GW your conclusion seems to contradict one of your starting assumptions... if i eventually end up understanding it, i shal do so I don't understand. I'm sorry, but the science (still) disagrees with your overlysimplistic calculation, and bascule/1veedo's comments are still valid. (and i still don't understand your maths) they would seem to amount to the same thing

the sharpest change (by far) in temperature anomoly in the last 10,000 happening over the last 100 years isn't anomolous? again: oreskes, 2004 the fact that theres scientific consensus is, itself, scientifically proven. as, coincidentally (and in the same paper), is the fact that the IPCC reports at least up to 2004 represent that consensus. so you're outright refusing to offer a citation, and trying to fob it off as somehow me being lazy? thats not how burden of proof works. if you want to argue that theres legitimate scientific doubt towards the consensus, they it's up to you to provied the citations. if you know your limitations, then shouldn't you listen to science? as opposed to individual scientists? as i said, if they haven't published, then -- with all due respect to them -- that can only be because they don't actually have any valid arguments to back their oppinions up with. my claim wasn't that maths couldn't describe evolution, but that the maths was not simple. you used the argument that CO2 contributes 24% of GW to deduce that CO2 contributes 9% of GW? Im not being facesious, i genuinly don't understand what you mean no, they were simply the first two consensuses that came to mind. but, as has been pointed out, the IPCC were acurately representing the consensus. ignore the IPCC and focus on the consensus. are you saying that the scientific consensus is flawed?0 what i actually said was that your maths was completely in disagreement with the scientific consensus. please don't reword my statements to make them seem rediculous a/ i still don't actually understood it, because i'm still not clear what the numbers meant b/ it's allready been refuted (see: bascule and 1veedo's posts) c/ i have. your calculations, if correct, suggest a result that is mutually exclusive with the current scientific understanding of the matter. ergo, your calculations are incorrect. or, the scientific understanding of the matter is incorrect, but i know which one i'm going to go with. basically, as has already been said, climatology cannot be rendered down to: effect of CO2 = [CO2]*KoC let alone combining the effects of [CO2] with [H2O] by simple addition then, please, give me the citation. yes, but random websites != science. otherwize evolution would be uncertain. that was quite clearly what he meant. he was (quite politely) saying that you think your calculations are correct, but the only reason they seem it is because you don't understand why they're wrong. but they're still wrong. but... 25% of the CO2, for example, is currently due to mankind. and it, iirc, 'almost certainly results in the observed temperature anomoly'. so i'm not sure where 9% comes from. afaik, theres no support for the claim that man produces 90% of GHGs, so i'll agree with that; but that doesn't change that current scientific thought is that the increase in atmospheric GHGs is probably what's caused all or most of the increase in temperature. not 9%

the crab. No one expects it, and no-one can look up in a book of openings what the best response to it is, so they have to think for themselves. admitedly, the reason they can't look it up in a book is because any book on openings simply says 'the crab is crap, don't use it' the crab is 1.a4 2.h4

no you can't. bits of it, yes, but not all of it. at no point did i say that maths wasn't involved. ok, i get that, reading from left to right, it's: anthropogenic CO2 * ? = 0.6 + (presumably anthropogenic) water vapor = 9% i'm curious as to what the 0.24 is. anyway, irreguardless of what you think, that doens't change the fact that the science says that mankind is responsable for the majority of recent GW. you could come up with as many small calculations as you want for gravity, evolution, or whatever, that disagree with the consensus, and that still wouldn't change the fact that gravity occours, and that the modern synthesys is correct. rather, it would indicate that you probably don't understand gravity/evolution. again, wether the IPCC benifited or not from the painting of 'as dire a picture' as they did is irrelevent. at the most, it means that (for them) it's a happy coincidence that the science allows for painting a bleak picture. as has already been scientifically proven, the IPCC represents scientific consensus. Its an ad-homenin argument. not even a relevent one. try to argue against their argument, not the IPCC. i was refering to the entire maths involved in calculating the effects of something on the environment, not your maths. would you mind giving the citation again, please? it's a long thread I'm genuinely curious as to what you're on about. however, a better approach would be to cite a paper that uses your calculation to arrive at the 'mankind is responsable for 9% of global warming' conclusion. i'd believe that. If you can't find one, and you truly believe your right, then go ahead and publish. you don't need a PhD, just the ability to persuade the journal that you're right, which -- given that it's basic chemistry 101, and such a simple equasion -- shouldn't be a problem, no?

with rounding off, it'd be 100% as in, virtually all man-made CO2 emissions are from burning fossil fules. feel free to find a source that dissagrees, if you want. you mean like the way that evolution is true, and so it's easily demonstrated mathematically? just because somethings true, doesn't mean its neccesarily describably with a simple equation. lol, yes, that was a silly error on my part a 35% anthropogenic increase translates as a 25ish% contribution of current CO2 by man. which still isn't 11% well, from the US emissions, it seems that near enough to 100% is from burning fossil fules. call it 99% if you want you have to say what the numbers are, tho rather than doing it yourself, why not find a paper where a scientist has done your very simple maths, and reached the same conclusions? but it doesn't suit science as a whole either way, and the IPCC accurately represented the scientific consensus (see the link to a peer-reviewed article supporting this last time i said it). not to mention the vast number of other institutes who support the IPCC view (unsurprisingly, as it's the scientific consensus; again, see the last wp link i gave) no. the maths is anything other than simple. it's not CO2 levels*constant = scale of doom we face. it's very, very, complicated. I don't claim to be able to fully understand the maths involved, and i doubt more than a few people on this board could. look at it like this: thousands of scientists operating within the peer-review system, examining crap-loads of data, and after years of research, think the recent anomolous warming is due to man. neither you nor me are going to be able to come up with an answre better than that. acknowledging this fact isn't lazyness of thought on my part, it's modesty. i.e., i'm not of the impression that i can out-think all those scientists with a fraction of the effort and data you seem to think that you can. so, again: do you actually have a peer-reviewed article that backs up what you're saying? source? if you can't find one, don't say it again. again, this is a science site. you can't just go 'hey, these unsuported numbers disprove the peer-reviewed science'

Yes, but that's not the stance being taken by my country. their stance is: 1) Smoking should be legal -- unlike heroine. 2) Our country should get huge amounts of taxes from tobacco. 3) No establishment has a right to emit mustard gas or allow others to do so, so why should smoke be any different? iow... smoking is so dangerouse that we can't risk people who are clever enough to not smoke but too stupid to chose a non-smoking pub being exposed to cigarrette smoke. however, we can let people who are stupid enough to smoke do so, and we can use their addiction to extract loads of tax from them too. see why i think that's hypocritical? i have different views from you re: drug control of the more dangerous drugs (like heroine and nicotine), but at least your last post was internally consistant. PS, as long as you don't have to go too near smoking areas, I don't see a problem. unlike mustard gas, tobacco smoke won't travel on the wind and melt peoples lungs.

'majority' means that there is no observed natural events that would account for a significant amount of the recent warming, hence it's 'majourly' anthropogenic. the graph i linked to shows the measured anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the US, with 'burning fossil fules' clearly being the main contributer of CO2 emissions. the next nearest contributes ~50TgCO2Eq... burning fossil fules contributes ~5600TgCO2Eq. however, you've only looked at a very, very, small part of the data, you're assuming certain relashionships between CO2 (etc) and GW which may not be the case, and you're assuming that the two things that you took into account are the only effects causing GW. the science, as i pointed out, is that man is responsible for virtually all the recent warming. they've stated that GHG (including CO2) are the most probable cause, and that continuing GW will most likely suck. hence, it's up to govournments how to react. given that sucky things are best avoided, and that CO2 is the majour GHG, and most anthropogenic CO2 comes from burning fossil fules, it makes sence to limit fossil fule burning. Note, tho, that other GHGs are also being reduced, such as sulphoxides, and CFCs; stopping deforestation is, logically, another inportant step. no, i just told you, it's almost all of 35%. this != "no idea" nor "can only assume". it's unlikely to be 12%, for example. yeah, we don't know exactly what amount we've caused, but we do know it's ~35%. 11% != ~35%. and, look, no matter what you're -- sorry, but -- outright wonky maths says, they're not going to cancel out massive amounts of peer-reviewed research. which, again, states that mankind are responsible for virtually all the recent temperature increase. If something as simple as a few quick calculations could disprove the current consensus on GW, do you not think that some research doctor with a PhD in climatology would have figured it out and published a very small paper that would guarantee him funding for the rest of his life? and i still don't understand you're maths, because there are lots of random '.5' and '.3's in there, along with 'biggest number from unspecified wiki page'

I don't know if paranoia will still be able to edit the post after this long, so i did it. I kinda agree (and, incidentally, the number of people who smoke but don't want to, coupled with it's fatality, is why i'd support an outright ban on smoking, i.e. make it illegal like heroine is). however, i do object to people saying, in one breath, that smoking's ok and should be legal, and our country should get huge amounts from taxing peoples legal addiction to a drug, whereas in the other breath they say that they themselves shouldn't be exposed to ciggarette smoke, even tho they're perfectly able to choose a pub/club with adequate air-con and/or no smoking policies/areas. y'know, the way they'd profit from our unhealthy addiction, but not want to be exposed to it if they happen to not be arsed to chose a non-smoking area to hang out. kill yourself for our profit in private, please, but dont make me have to slightly share in your ill health that i'm paying less tax as a result of either illegalise it completely, or accept it; not both.

wait, we can target vectors in vivo, can't we? maybe not with 100% accuracy, but the fact that we can kinda sujjests that attaining ~100% accuracy is just a matter of time.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources. the first graph shows (for the US) the predominance of burining fossil fules as a source of anthropogenic CO2. bear in mind, aswell, that deforestation results in the CO2 being readsorbed slower, so increases in atmospheric CO2 are due both to emissions (natural and anthropogenic) and slower readsorption. umm... IPCC 2001, in http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005[,][...] a 35 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities so, it's scientifically accepted that there's been a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2, almost all of which is anthropogenic. from the latest IPCC report, this leaves CO2 as a majour candidate for causing/contributing to anthropogenic global warming. I have no idea what you're maths is all about, but i'll remind you that it's scientifically accepted that man is responsable for all/most of the anomolous temperature rise recently. ~35% of the atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, either by being put there by us, or by remaining there due to our deforestation (see above IPCC report via epa site)

none of which change the inescapable and scientifically supported fact that, over the last 100 years, we have experienced an obviously anomolous increase in temperature. nor any of the other facts accepted by science. all of them that publish papers on the causes of climate change. have any of these published peer-reviewed papers disagreeing with the scientific consensus? If not, i'd have to assume that they don't actually have any valid arguments/data to back their conclusions up with.

If you want just one thing to read to get an accurate appraisal of the scientific view, i suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change espescially the Oreskes, 2004 citation, which proves theres a consensus, which is: Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" =============== OK people, this is a science site. that means that by being here -- on a science site -- you kinda have to do things scientifically where applicable. That means that if something is a scientific fact, you may not simply ignore it. It is not tolerated whilst discussing any other area of science, and it will not be tolerated whilst discussing climatology and GW. Its a scientific fact that, (a) recently, the world has been experiencing an anomalous period of climate change, which (b) coincides suspiciously with mankind's level of industrialization. it's also scientifically accepted that © the anomaly is not caused entirely by natural fluctuations in the climate, and that (d) the recent temperature change not attributable to natural fluctuations is caused by mankind. (e) CO2 probably plays a huge role in this. Yes, there is some uncertainty. yes, there are some scientific questions about the facts. however, there are no significant and serious arguments against the above put forth by scientists (serious being defined as 'actually good enough an argument to be published', as opposed to 'dont know what i'm talking about but rejecting it anyway'). hence, there is a consensus. and the fact that there is a consensus, and this is a science site, means that you can't just go 'hey, this hypothesys that's accepted by science is bull'. I'd request that anyone who wishes to argue against the above provides a link to a peer-reviewed article supporting their claim. by all means, if you can find some actual peer-reviewed science that argues against the consensus, then post it up. else, you have to admit that the reports (such as the IPCC one) acurately reflect the conclusions of our best method of discerning facts. outright refuse to acknowledge it all you want, but also realise that that kind of approach has no place on a science site. iow, keep it to yourself. Brief elaborations on the consensus: (a): recently, the world has been experiencing an anomalous period of climate change This shouldn't be hard, as it's a direct observation. Its also pretty graph time, again: right is a long time ago, left is recent. note the general temperature trend to remain broadly the same. i.e., natural fluctuations occour, but the temperature stays roughly around the same point. note also the speed with which the temperature changes. there are two anomolies. on the right, we have the obviously anomolouse ice-age, causing the humungous rise in temperature as the ice age ended. The other anomoly is to the left of the graph, with '2004' pointing to it. such a sudden increase in such a short time is clearly anomolous. To put it in prospective, trace the black line starting from the right, up to the first peak, then down to the first trough, which we'll call point A. now, trace it up to the next peak, past the next trough, and onto the next peak, which we'll call point B. The temperature change from A to B represents one of the sharpest temperature changes in our history, and it takes > 1,500 years to achieve. Now, look at the recent anomoly on the left. note that its an even greater increase in temperature, and it takes <100 years to achieve. this is unarguably anomolouse (the insert shows the anomoly clearer, but the main graph shows that its anomolous clearer) (b): which coincides suspiciously with mankind's level of industrialization. This should also be quite inescapably clear from the above graph, given the time-frame ©: the anomaly is not caused entirely by natural fluctuations in the climate given that the temperature change is anomolous, and theres no known natural precedent that caused as sharp an increase, and we haven't noticed any natural oddities (eg, sun activity, earth's orbit, volcano activity, etc) that could explain it, this is a pretty obvious conclusion. (d): the recent temperature change not attributable to natural fluctuations is caused by mankind. pretty safe assumption, given (b) and © (e): CO2 probably plays a huge role in this. see literature.

hang on, are we talking about a proposed bill or a proposed amendment to an existing bill? iow, in sisyphus' link, are the strikken and inserted bits the proposed change, or is the entire bill the proposed change (with the strickken/inserted bits the latest modification to a proposed bill)

lol @ multiple gramma fixes in the amendment does it actually expand the definition? it looks like it just 'undefines' it. I'd guess that the definition of 'sex' would now be either a matter of common law, or defined elsewhere, but it's just a guess. the only problem i can see with defining sex biologically is that a male--> female transexual will still be genotypically Xy (i.e., male) and vice-a-versa, so it's possibly better to not define it that way (tho defining it anatomically would have worked).

the fact that it was trivial to find said pubs shows that there are ample licenced premices willing to let you break the law on their property. hopefully we can rely on them to show the same lack of caring for the no smoking laws. same here, tbh. heh. y'know, in some places, hooded tops were actually banned from the town centre I might pick something random to complain about, and see if i can get it banned hmm... I think we should enforse a 'mobile phones switched off in public' law. y'know, even tho they only generate trivial noise pollution, and people allready put up with cars. no one phones me, so I don't see why other people should be phoned in public, or why i should be expected to tolerate something that kinda bugs me a little bit. and there is evidence about them being dangerouse, and they were involved in the made-up phenomena of happy slapping. grumble grumble moan, stoopid people and their stoopid faschism. [/hissy fit]

so, not just pop outside, then. at least it seems you can still smoke in pub gardens I think one of the main arguments is the protection of the pub workers, not the patrons. but still, they could have said 'get decent air con and ban smoking at the bar itself, or ban smoking in the whole pub'. ah, i'm just gonna ignore it. I didn't pay attention to the 'must be 18 to drink in a pub' law when i was 14, and i found enough pubs willing to accomodate my rebeliousness; I'll just pop down the local 'dont care if you smoke' pub, and stub out if a pig comes in. ---- tbh, i think people just want to ban smoking entirely (fair enough) but are too weak to actually do it, so are trying to windge untill smoking away.

hmm... weren't there also discussions of laws stopping people smoking immediately outside of pubs? maybe i'm thinking of eirland? anyway, I shouldn't have to have to. if it's a non-smoking pub, fair enough, i would (or i'd go to a smoking pub). i just object to the requirement of all pubs to soon be non-smoking. I wonder how much hassle there'll be enforsing this law? I'm kinda hoping it'll just be ignored on such a large scale that it's effectively legal. which would humerously prevent any pubs from being non-smoking

yeah, we were getting along ok in the uk, too. lots of pubs had uber-air-conditioning around the bar, and no smoking at the bar itself. soon, tho, even those places wont be allowed to let you smoke in the pub (iirc, bar = pub in the US. in the uk, bar just means the counter where the drinks are actually served, not the building itself)

apart from in the uk, where noone is allowed to smoke in an indoors public place from this summer onward. including pubs. as i said, go to a restaurant with a decent no-smoking area. i don't particularly like people smoking whilst i eat, so i go to non-smoking restaraunts. or smoking restaurants with people who are nice enough to ask before smoking during the actual meal.

the 'right' to not have to tolerate something that, ultimately, just annoys you a bit is not in the constitution either, remember... in certain places, like pubs, the majority of the damaging pollution comes from cigarettes. barring a few places like pubs/clubs, tho, the majority of the damaging pollution (and the smell) comes from petrol and diesel fumes. seriously, if you're walking down a street and pass a smoker, you've got to put up with some non-damaging levels of tobacco smoke for about a second, and damaging levels of car fumes all day long. yet, people seem unprepared to tolerate the fomer, and perfectly happy with the latter.

I don't see why both can't be accomodated. dont like smoke? go to a non-smoking pub/restaurant/whatever. do like smoking? go to a smoking pub/restaurant/whatever. don't like being exposed to ciggarette smoke for a couple of seconds whilst walking past someone in the street? no need to ban it on those grounds, surely? the only laws i'd like to see are ones ensuring that people who have to work in smoking pubs have adequate air conditioning to suck the smoke away from the bar, and maybe 'no smoking whilst actually at the bar' rules, so that the workers (who would get huge exposure) are ok. nicotine inhalers?

when the country dumps upon them the responsabilitis of an adult (e.g., they have to pay taxes as an adult, get charged with crimes they commit as an adult, etc) then it should also allow them to vote as one. otherwize, you have the responsabilities of a full member of society, without the privellages, which is a tad unfair.

it could also be as simple as wrinkles showing up more on white skin; the folds cause shadows, which highlight them against white skin, but not against black.

hmm... isn't that the third time you've mentioned that stat? would you care to offer a citation supporting it?