Earth: Operator's Manuel and Climate Change

[rdean]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

 

[code1211]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change? I'm guessing no since they've not done it yet anywhere else.

With the ongoing increase in education spending and the ongoing increase in teachers' incomes and the ongoing increase in the administative costs of education, one might expect an ongoing increase in the outcomes of the programs planned, constructed and implemented by the educational complex.

Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

Republicans don't need to "slash education". The education industry has already done that. AND they've done it with increased funding. Seems like they could contiunue to produce falling results with decreased funding.

Is it possible that if funding goes in the opposite direction that results go the other way, too?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Vostok Ice cores shows that CO2 increases FOLLOWS temperature increases by 800 years...this modern ManMade Global Warming CO2....it's just...different, its not like other CO2 molecules

 

[Mr Liberty]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

Please, go to college, take a critical thinking class, pretty please. The Gop is not responsible for all the bad things in the world; the Dem s helped them.

 

[rdean]

Vostok Ice cores shows that CO2 increases FOLLOWS temperature increases by 800 years...this modern ManMade Global Warming CO2....it's just...different, its not like other CO2 molecules

Just saying something doesn't make it true. At least post a link to whatever it is you just "made up".

 

[del]

manuel


classic

 

[rdean]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change? I'm guessing no since they've not done it yet anywhere else.

With the ongoing increase in education spending and the ongoing increase in teachers' incomes and the ongoing increase in the administative costs of education, one might expect an ongoing increase in the outcomes of the programs planned, constructed and implemented by the educational complex.

Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

Republicans don't need to "slash education". The education industry has already done that. AND they've done it with increased funding. Seems like they could contiunue to produce falling results with decreased funding.

Is it possible that if funding goes in the opposite direction that results go the other way, too?

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change?

Is that a serious question?

Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

When you have half the country wanting to teach "magical creation" as an alternative to "science", then, yes, our educational system has problems. Only 6% of scientists are Republican. Red States are filled with "Bible Colleges" and other institutions of lower learning. Hearing right wingers explain science and complain about "education" is "hilarious". Really, it's "hilarious". Where do most of the dropouts come from I wonder? Hmmm. Gov statistics are the easiest to find.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

No they cannot.

Without watching the show I am going to guess that they can study the particulates in the trapped atmosphere and make educated guesses about things, but CO2 from a animal breathing out is identical to the CO2 that comes from burning a piece of coal. It all contains one atom of carbon and two of oxygen.

Ever watch TLC or Discovery Channel? They show the same kinds of shows, and don't get any money from the government. Why should we keep funding them simply because you watch them on PBS? Especially if they tell you that scientist can determine where CO2 comes from.

 

[rdean]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

No they cannot.

Without watching the show I am going to guess that they can study the particulates in the trapped atmosphere and make educated guesses about things, but CO2 from a animal breathing out is identical to the CO2 that comes from burning a piece of coal. It all contains one atom of carbon and two of oxygen.

Ever watch TLC or Discovery Channel? They show the same kinds of shows, and don't get any money from the government. Why should we keep funding them simply because you watch them on PBS? Especially if they tell you that scientist can determine where CO2 comes from.

Yea, scientists always "guess". This is why YOU need to go back to school:

Carbon isotope analyses proved to be a very useful technique for identifying the source of CO2.

http://arblast.osmre.gov/downloads/Mine Gases and Dust/Balbassare Isotope Paper.pdf

What is wrong with you people? You sit in front of the Internet. Take a minute to "look it up". Oh, wait, I forgot. I'm sorry. You don't believe in science because it's really a "faith". My bad.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who is Manuel?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I didn't realize that people still believed in this crap.

 

[007]

manuel


classic

I'd say typical of rdeans pathetic level of education he exudes.

 

[Oddball]

Who is Manuel?

Manager of the Phillies.

It's baseball season, though....I doubt he has any time leftover to manage the entire planet.

 

[California Girl]

Only 6% of rdean's threads are worth reading. This is not one of them.

 

[rdean]

You put in one wrong letter and Republicans go even crazier. No surprise. It's all they have. All they will ever have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

No they cannot.

Without watching the show I am going to guess that they can study the particulates in the trapped atmosphere and make educated guesses about things, but CO2 from a animal breathing out is identical to the CO2 that comes from burning a piece of coal. It all contains one atom of carbon and two of oxygen.

Ever watch TLC or Discovery Channel? They show the same kinds of shows, and don't get any money from the government. Why should we keep funding them simply because you watch them on PBS? Especially if they tell you that scientist can determine where CO2 comes from.

Yea, scientists always "guess". This is why YOU need to go back to school:

Carbon isotope analyses proved to be a very useful technique for identifying the source of CO2.

http://arblast.osmre.gov/downloads/Mine Gases and Dust/Balbassare Isotope Paper.pdf

What is wrong with you people? You sit in front of the Internet. Take a minute to "look it up". Oh, wait, I forgot. I'm sorry. You don't believe in science because it's really a "faith". My bad.

Yes, scientists do guess, what do you think a hypothesis is?

Thanks for the article, it was informative. I learned something, and I always enjoy learning.

Funny thing is, it actually tends to make what I said about your interpretation of the show even more poignant than you just ignoring me would have. There are not different types of CO2, there are different isotopes of carbon. You get carbon 13 from burning rocks, which occurs naturally when volcanoes erupt. Yes, I know lava is basically melted rock, I also know that the rocks through which lave flows are not melted. They are actually charred from the heat. In other words, they are burned.

You have three basic carbon isotopes, all of which can be released when a volcano erupts, so there is no way they can prove that certain traces of CO2 did not come from volcanoes. Nor can they tell the difference between CO2 released by burning cola and that exhaled by me.

Thanks for proving that, although I had forgotten to factor in isotopes, I was still right about what you said. You were wrong.

 

[rdean]

No they cannot.

Without watching the show I am going to guess that they can study the particulates in the trapped atmosphere and make educated guesses about things, but CO2 from a animal breathing out is identical to the CO2 that comes from burning a piece of coal. It all contains one atom of carbon and two of oxygen.

Ever watch TLC or Discovery Channel? They show the same kinds of shows, and don't get any money from the government. Why should we keep funding them simply because you watch them on PBS? Especially if they tell you that scientist can determine where CO2 comes from.

Yea, scientists always "guess". This is why YOU need to go back to school:

Carbon isotope analyses proved to be a very useful technique for identifying the source of CO2.

http://arblast.osmre.gov/downloads/Mine Gases and Dust/Balbassare Isotope Paper.pdf

What is wrong with you people? You sit in front of the Internet. Take a minute to "look it up". Oh, wait, I forgot. I'm sorry. You don't believe in science because it's really a "faith". My bad.

Yes, scientists do guess, what do you think a hypothesis is?

Thanks for the article, it was informative. I learned something, and I always enjoy learning.

Funny thing is, it actually tends to make what I said about your interpretation of the show even more poignant than you just ignoring me would have. There are not different types of CO2, there are different isotopes of carbon. You get carbon 13 from burning rocks, which occurs naturally when volcanoes erupt. Yes, I know lava is basically melted rock, I also know that the rocks through which lave flows are not melted. They are actually charred from the heat. In other words, they are burned.

You have three basic carbon isotopes, all of which can be released when a volcano erupts, so there is no way they can prove that certain traces of CO2 did not come from volcanoes. Nor can they tell the difference between CO2 released by burning cola and that exhaled by me.

Thanks for proving that, although I had forgotten to factor in isotopes, I was still right about what you said. You were wrong.

Oh yea, scientists are wrong and you are right. Please list your inventions and contributions.

 

[code1211]

EARTH - The Operators? Manual (E-TOM)

EARTH: The Operators' Manual : PBS

Senate Republicans introduce bill to defund NPR, PBS

I'm watching "Earth: Operator's Manuel". Amazing, the time lapse video of glaciers over years. Some have shrunk so much, the cameras had to be moved.

The cycles of the earth's orbit and the rising temperature from the sun are all studied and the data applied. The sun gets 10 degrees warmer every 1 billion years.

Volcanoes don't burn rocks. Instead, rocks are "melted" so they add between 1/50 and 1/100 times as much as humans do. Because people "burn" and not "melt".

How do they know? Because samples of the atmosphere are trapped in the ice. Also, there are different kinds of CO2. Scientists can tell the difference between the type of CO2 that comes from volcanoes and what comes from burning fossils fuels and what ever else burns.

Our military employs scientists so they know that climate change is happening. The US Military is the largest user of energy in the US. They scientists they employ are working to move our military away from fossil fuels.

When I watch shows like this, put together by scientists using evidence, I understand why Republicans are desperate to defund these sources of public knowledge and slash education.

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change? I'm guessing no since they've not done it yet anywhere else.

With the ongoing increase in education spending and the ongoing increase in teachers' incomes and the ongoing increase in the administative costs of education, one might expect an ongoing increase in the outcomes of the programs planned, constructed and implemented by the educational complex.

Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

Republicans don't need to "slash education". The education industry has already done that. AND they've done it with increased funding. Seems like they could contiunue to produce falling results with decreased funding.

Is it possible that if funding goes in the opposite direction that results go the other way, too?

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change?

Is that a serious question?
Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

When you have half the country wanting to teach "magical creation" as an alternative to "science", then, yes, our educational system has problems. Only 6% of scientists are Republican. Red States are filled with "Bible Colleges" and other institutions of lower learning. Hearing right wingers explain science and complain about "education" is "hilarious". Really, it's "hilarious". Where do most of the dropouts come from I wonder? Hmmm. Gov statistics are the easiest to find.

The question is a serious one. Our current warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. It has continued through a series of fits and starts and drops and rises and repeats while CO2 has increased at a very predictable and pretty contant rate.

The leading scientist in the world in this field could not predict the rise of temperature as a result of the increase of CO2. It makes you wonder, check that, it makes ME wonder if he really knows his stuff. Results matter to some and not to others.

I'm prettty sure that Dr. James Hansen will not self identify as a Republican, not that it matters. However, this failure does not seem to make his prediction any more accurate. 3 scenarios. 3 predictions. 3 fails. Nothing is more obvious than a mistake in triplicate.

Regarding education: You seem to be saying that the failure of the educational system is not a function of the system, the acedemics, the planning, the ciriculum, the administration or the basic philosophy. What's left? Oh, yes! The results. You are saying that the failure of the educational system to produce good results is the fault of the results.

Cue the circus music.

 

[rdean]

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change? I'm guessing no since they've not done it yet anywhere else.

With the ongoing increase in education spending and the ongoing increase in teachers' incomes and the ongoing increase in the administative costs of education, one might expect an ongoing increase in the outcomes of the programs planned, constructed and implemented by the educational complex.

Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

Republicans don't need to "slash education". The education industry has already done that. AND they've done it with increased funding. Seems like they could contiunue to produce falling results with decreased funding.

Is it possible that if funding goes in the opposite direction that results go the other way, too?

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change?

Is that a serious question?
Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

When you have half the country wanting to teach "magical creation" as an alternative to "science", then, yes, our educational system has problems. Only 6% of scientists are Republican. Red States are filled with "Bible Colleges" and other institutions of lower learning. Hearing right wingers explain science and complain about "education" is "hilarious". Really, it's "hilarious". Where do most of the dropouts come from I wonder? Hmmm. Gov statistics are the easiest to find.

The question is a serious one. Our current warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. It has continued through a series of fits and starts and drops and rises and repeats while CO2 has increased at a very predictable and pretty contant rate.

The leading scientist in the world in this field could not predict the rise of temperature as a result of the increase of CO2. It makes you wonder, check that, it makes ME wonder if he really knows his stuff. Results matter to some and not to others.

I'm prettty sure that Dr. James Hansen will not self identify as a Republican, not that it matters. However, this failure does not seem to make his prediction any more accurate. 3 scenarios. 3 predictions. 3 fails. Nothing is more obvious than a mistake in triplicate.

Regarding education: You seem to be saying that the failure of the educational system is not a function of the system, the acedemics, the planning, the ciriculum, the administration or the basic philosophy. What's left? Oh, yes! The results. You are saying that the failure of the educational system to produce good results is the fault of the results.

Cue the circus music.

Three predictions, no links, guess that proves it. Once again, without a single study or bit of data, the GOP is right and the rest of the world is wrong. With that batting average, you would think that more than 6% of scientists in the US would be Republicans.

 

[code1211]

Did the scientists explain what the actual evidence is that connects CO2 with the actual temperature change?

Is that a serious question?
Instead we see that the outcome is reduced test scores and reduced standing internationally of our students in relation to other industrialized countries.

When you have half the country wanting to teach "magical creation" as an alternative to "science", then, yes, our educational system has problems. Only 6% of scientists are Republican. Red States are filled with "Bible Colleges" and other institutions of lower learning. Hearing right wingers explain science and complain about "education" is "hilarious". Really, it's "hilarious". Where do most of the dropouts come from I wonder? Hmmm. Gov statistics are the easiest to find.

The question is a serious one. Our current warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. It has continued through a series of fits and starts and drops and rises and repeats while CO2 has increased at a very predictable and pretty contant rate.

The leading scientist in the world in this field could not predict the rise of temperature as a result of the increase of CO2. It makes you wonder, check that, it makes ME wonder if he really knows his stuff. Results matter to some and not to others.

I'm prettty sure that Dr. James Hansen will not self identify as a Republican, not that it matters. However, this failure does not seem to make his prediction any more accurate. 3 scenarios. 3 predictions. 3 fails. Nothing is more obvious than a mistake in triplicate.

Regarding education: You seem to be saying that the failure of the educational system is not a function of the system, the acedemics, the planning, the ciriculum, the administration or the basic philosophy. What's left? Oh, yes! The results. You are saying that the failure of the educational system to produce good results is the fault of the results.

Cue the circus music.

Three predictions, no links, guess that proves it. Once again, without a single study or bit of data, the GOP is right and the rest of the world is wrong. With that batting average, you would think that more than 6% of scientists in the US would be Republicans.

Here's a link to a cite that uses real data and tortures it trying to make it say that even though Hansen was wrong he was really right. Actual results, they seem to be saying are not important.

The complete increase of temperature was 100% of the increase. The Hansen predicted increase was 200%. He missed by 100%. If he had done nothing but average the increase over the previous 50 years, he would have hit it perfectly and could have done so in one afternoon at the cost of about a six pack, a sheet of paper and a pencil. The six pack is optional.

This your kind of site. Liberals saying that because they really, really want it to be so that it is so. Pay no attention to the actual results. Our prediction is what you need to embrace. Reality is nothing. Reality can change. Our agenda will never change.

I'm thinking that in their next article they will expain how the Big 0 will balance the budget by spending so much that eventually the greatness of the amount somehow defies physics due to its size and starts to shrink again by growing.

I suspect that, again, Conservatives will not be able to understand that. Why are Conservatives so wrapped in reality when it only exists in nature and other things.

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong