theCPE

And the increase over the past 100 years is .6C on average........

6y = 9 - 3x - add 3x 6y + 3x = 9 - divide by 3 2y + x = 3 - subtract 2y x = 3 - 2y Should be - 2y not + 2y in final line.

There is no contest in determining the most intelligent species on the planet. The sheer fact that you and other humans can debate this topic is evidence enough. How is building a shell or finding and crawling into a shell comparable to learning to manipulate matter and fields to create technology like we have? Survival instinct and adaptability are not equivalent to intelligence. It is always amusing to hear such comments as this, "humans wrongly consider themselves superior intellectually blah blah blah..." while humurous (douglas adams comes to mind..hitchhikers guide) in sci fi books it is ridiculous in scientific debate.

Yeh, I don't believe you can view light exactly as sound waves (with peaks and troughs of dense or no so dense air). Plus, light exists as a duality of waves and particles. A really neat experiment (not sure it would help you much though) is to use polarizing lenses and orient them at 90 degree angles and shine light through them, adjusting the lenses and watching the light appear and disappear.

A filter that polarizes light allows only the light vibrating in a specific plane to pass through. Once the light has passed through that filter it is polarized to one plane of vibration.

A body is initially accelerated by the curvature of spacetime; imagine a body traveling a specific path at an unchanging pace. If it encounters a spacetime curvature, the body is accelerated and its path, and possibly pace changes.

Huh? Of course you can look at sequential firing of neurons as "steps"..... A "step" isn't CS terminology anyway, it is general terminology describing sequencing of events. The comparison is between a sequence of events within the brain which can activate vast numbers of neurons, however only 100 SEQUENTIALLY due to the time constraint. Like a datapath..... And the process can't currently be handled with computer architecture or software in 100 SEQUENTIAL operations. Well, object recognition can't be done period for that matter. Therefore, proponents of "computers aren't fast enough for AI yet" and "the brain works in a massive parallel architecture which is why it is so fast" are wrong.

It was a poor analogy at best. Formula exploration alone demonstrates how objects of differing mass are attracted equally to a third object. Using it as an analogy of my mathetmatical explanation of man's contributions to GW either shows your lack of knowledge of GW, gravity, or both.

WTF? Wiki states that CO2 contributes between 9% - 24% of total GW. Meaning there is not a consensus on exactly how much CO2 contributes, but is between 9-24....I used 24% as opposed to 9 or an average to benefit GW advocates..... What do you not follow?

Not exactly, but now maybe I see some of the source of confusion. The 9% is the total contributions MAN is responsible for pertaining to GW. It just so happens that the wiki range starts at 9% and the final number comes out 9%, they are separate values! Heres hoping!!! GW as defined by the EPA is any and all sources that produce greenhouse gases that cause our planet to be warm. The epa further points out how GW is necessary for life. That being said, 90% of the past century's increase of .6C due to man is not equivalent to 90% of GW is due to man. Get it?

Maybe I am not explaining myself well. Wiki said that CO2 contributes between 9-24% of GW. They gave a range. I used the upper limit to give GW advocacy people the benefit of the doubt. Well than just as easily as I showed how that was wrong, someone should be able to show where my math is wrong. Again, the source of confusion is all in the wording used by ipcc. 90% of the .6C increase in temperature over the past century may be accurate. That does not mean that 90% of GW is due to man. 9% of GW is due to man demonstrated by my math. Ipcc doesn't print the calculations showing the math because that doesn't sound DIRE that is why it behooves them to say instead "90% of current GW is due to man" instead of ".54C of the .6C increase in temperature in the past century is due to man" There is nothing about the GW dynamic that can not be described and examined with math. It is like a mixture problem. Understand? 24% of GW comes from CO2 76% of GW comes from water vapor man is responsible for 25% of CO2 man is responsible for 4% of water vapor. .04*.76 + .24 * .25 = .09 = 9% See?

Sisyphus, I agree completely. Achieving intelligence in computers has very little to do with processor speed. A human can look at a picture and in less than half a second respond with "yes that is a cat" or "no, that is not a cat". In that time only 100 sequential neurons could have fired in the brain. There is no computer or software that can in 100 steps determine if a cat is or isn't in a picture (object recognition). Thus, AI isn't dependent upon speed. Moore's law is close to having "run its course", as transistor sizes are approaching physical limitations. However, that doesn't equate to the end of progress in computing.

Aside from just speed, quantum computers may be just what the AI field needs to start making actual 'intelligence' and to attempt systems for object recognition that actually work.

Dak, I think I have identified the source of confusion. And it is something I have incidentally been alluding to of late. It is all how ipcc words its results/findings. The 90% of current GW is due to man statistic. What ipcc means is that man has caused 90% of the .6C change over the last century. What they say sounds like (especially to politicians or laymen whom have no clue about GW) man is and cotinues to cause 9 times as much of the gases that warm our planet as nature. When in my math I have demonstrated that man contributes anywhere from 5-9% of the gases causing GW. It is all in how ipcc words things for sensationalism and fear. Does that sound like the source of confusion?

Ok, dak. And I address you becaue I feel you are the only one of the recent posters that believes man is responsible for the majority of GW that probably is honestly trying to understand what I am pointing out. If you really believe what I am posting pertaining to math is wrong then show why. Just like I pointed out how bascule was wrong about gravity and falling bodies. If you dont' want me to question ipcc and instead question their science than do the same for me. Look at my math, question which parts seem wrong.

Um......no. You apparently don't understand GW or physics. F = ma F = m1*m2/d^2 By setting the equations equal it is obvious the mass of the 5g object and the 10g object cancel out. 5(a) = 5 * (earth's mass)/d^2 OOPS there goes the 5g 10(a) = 10 * (earth's mass)/d^2 OOPS there goes the 10g Feel free to insert any gravitational source into earth's slot in my above example. Uh no. The system is classified by having specific contributions from specific greenhouse gases. The system is also classified by feedback amounts. The system is further classified by how much of the greenhouse gases comes from man. I took all of those into account. Could you please demonstrate where any calculus is needed. Again with the feedback defense. I used veedo's own numbers he linked to feedback produced by temperature on other gases. It doesn't matter if it is linear the correlation can be examined and mathematical calculated.

Wrong again, (second time you have asserted this) I used your own numbers for increase in water vapor due to temperature and included the GW due to increased water vapor. Remember.....3C = 20% increase in water vapor .6/3 * .2 = 4% increase in water vapor due to feedback...... That is now about post 10 with that calculation.....

-Probability of mutation due to radiation levels. -Kmaps for gene distribution into offspring. -Length of time Math can't describe the mutation....but it describes the amount of mutation... From the wiki articles people have posted, the largest percentage that co2 contributes to GW is 24% and the smallest is 9%. Being the objective person I am, I used the largest percentage. So man's effects on GW are as founded and conclusive as gravity now! WOW! If you can't understand why data and results are presented the way they are from ipcc than it is your own naivity that needs questioning. Of course it is relevant if ipcc benefits by painting a more dire picture than actually true. And one peered reviewed journal of a group of scientist with all the same motives and agendies hardly equates to scientific consensus. It means what that group agrees with gets printed......duh. Hi, kettle! That is exactly what I have been doing, thus my math. You on the other hand can only revert to "well I haven't been told that by ipcc so obviously it is wrong." Why don't you do what you are suggesting, and refute my math or logic. Because it wont come from your coveted ipcc because it wont agree with their ideas. And therefore you or whomever else will once again just immediately claim bullshit. BUT AGAIN! If my math is so obviously wrong SHOW WHY OR HOW!!! Its been published before, the numbers were not exactly mine but the jest was the same: Man equtes to under 10% of GW. The fact that it isn't in ipcc just means what I pointed out earlier....they print what they agree with. If you really want to see others working similar math than by all means google "man's contributions to GW" or other similar strings and you can find just as many sites/links that say man is MOSTLY as you can man isn't MOSTLY.

Yeh, you can demonstrate evolution very easily using statistics. No but when it is known what greenhouse gases are, and it is known what contributions they produce, and it is known what man contributes to those gases then it obviously lends to math.....whether or not you want to accept that or understand that doesn't matter. No, the 11-20% came from me using 50% and 80% of that increase from fossil fuels. I will now once again to humor you use 100%, therefore 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere is from man. .25*.24 = .06 + .029 (water vapor) = 9% There, my apologies, man is responsible for anywhere from 5-9% of GW. Because, like I pointed out before (again with the repeating myself) there is a reason that ipcc or other organizations don't provide such simple explanations. They want to paint as dire a picture as possible, simplicity relativism doesn't help them do that. If that is true, that is very scarey. This isn't calculus, this isn't DE, this isn't linear systems. This is really similar to a basic chemistry problem from chem101. You have mutliple sources that contribute X amount each, what is the total amount contributed by source Z. What a joke. I have provided a site that linked all of its sources which were climatologist and scientists. The site had very similar results as I have provided over and over. But as usual the response from the GW advocacy club is "heh, well the ipcc doesn't say that so its bullshit". You not understanding the math doesn't make it wrong, it just means you can't come to a proper conclusion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the numbers, every time you or someone else complains about the distributions I obliged. And now at 9% we are far from the 90% number. And again, no crap, man is causing warming....I just said that. But the ipcc words its results intentionally to mislead and sensationalize. Do you get that? Just like oil scares in the past, and global cooling and famine in the past. SENSATIONALISM gets attention and makes things happen. Honest numbers that show that yeh, man does cause GW, but nothing to cry about doom over doesn't cause change. And trying to enact change through false pretenses is wrong. If you are still not understanding the math, I would be happy to explain every * and + with a paragraph. It really is simple, I promise. The most difficult part about it is understanding how proportions and distributions of "solutions" works.

If you noticed I included the feedback effects in my math. The math I did is correct. Man is responsible for around 5-7% of GW through use of fossil fuels. And it is important to distinquish between MAN and MAN by way of fossil fuels. After all if we are trying to defend kyoto or create legislation due to data the data needs to clearly be related to the legislation. If the legislation is too alleviate fossil fuel burning, than obviously we need to know how much current fossil fuel burning adds into the GW dynamic. Not how much man in total does, otherwise the gains are wrongly magnified. Whether or not people admit it, IPCC and any other environmental group have motives and agendies. Just like gore has an agenda, he is a large stake holder in the carbon offset company he pushes. Obviously oil companies have an agenda too, but don't you think destorying life and the planet is just as dangerous to them as everyone else? Or will their money they make off of oil somehow save them from catastrophic events. This IMO is what it comes down too. Man by burning fossil fuels does cause GW, in the amount of around 5-7% of the total. Which is probably enough to make the average temperature a little warmer than without man existing. However, it is a far leap to go from that and then to assume we are approaching doom. First, that assumes we will continue to increase our fossil fuel consumption over centuries. Which is not true. We are slowly but surely switching energy sources, the whole time alleviating more and more stress from fossil fuel burning. Second, there I don't believe is anything wrong with setting limits to fossil fuel usage increases, however forcing reductions is another story. It is innapropriate and misleading to sensationalize GW (which IPCC does) in hopes of confusing politicians and laypeople and scaring them. The hopes of course are to force MAJOR funding into alternate energy sources, which obviously is beneficial in the long run. However, forcing research under false pretenses is wrong. Just like the oil scares decades back, when wackos were claiming were had 50 years at most of oil left.....once again same outcome was expected force alternate energy research, by sensationalizing and misleading people.

Let me explain this the simpliest way possible. Imagine you have a 10 gallon bucket filled with water! No imagine your buddy BOB has a 20 gallon bucket with 10 gallons of water in it. So it is half full. You tell BOB, "hey, let me pour my water into your bucket!". So you do. Now BOB's bucket has 20 gallons and is full. Your water increased the amount of water in BOB's bucket by 100%, however, your water only accounts for 50% of the total water. 10/20 = .5 = 50% If you can't understand that, and then apply that to the co2 in the atmosphere I really don't know what else to say.

No. That is not what majority means. Majority, and feel free to use google or dictionary.com, means more than half. Well use your fancy graph, and divide the amount due to fossil fuels by the total and come back with the % of the 35% that is from fossil fuels. If this is the case that obviously you should be able to easily demonstrate this with math...... Let me explain the math even more..... current co2 ppm is 377....historically its averaged 280....97/280 = 35% increase in CO2. However, 35% increase in co2 DOES NOT EQUAL 35% of co2 in the atmosphere is from man. If you have 100% of co2 in the atmosphere and then it increases 35% the total co2 in the atmosphere from the 35% increase is 35/135 = 26%. And again, when you provide the numbers of what percentage of that 26% is from fossil fuels ONLY you come up with the amount of co2 that we can eliminate through kyoto and other legislation. I used .5 and .8 since a number hasn't been provided.....which yields the 13% and 20.8% respectively. Those are the percentages of the total atmospheric co2 that comes from burning fossil fuels. Haha, there is nothing wonky about my math, if you can't understand it than obviously you shouldn't have reached any conclusions yet on GW. It is multiplication and the associative property. It isn't ground breaking, and I imagine the majority of the scientist at ipcc understand the math and know the values. However, the way in which the values are presented suits the goals of the ipcc to phrase it differently. ANd again, this was in the last post, but I continue finding myself repeating stuff..... It suits the ipcc to say X amount of GW is due to man, far more than it suits them to say X amount of GW is due to fossil fuels. Haha, I didn't link wiki someone else did, if you have doubts about wiki's numbers AGAIN provide the numbers you would like me to use. Further, if you can't understand the math than how have you come to a conclusion about this topic. Simple arithmetic is necessary for a person to decide how dire the condition of GW is. But I imagine you didn't think to make your own decision...after all it is far easier to have one handed to you.

I had been using numbers from the CDIAC, to calculate co2 increase that being: 77/300 = 25%, however you know what, I am cool with using your number of 35%. Again, anthropogenic does not mean from burning fossil fuels. And again, the amount from burning fossil fuels matters. Why does the ipcc not have any number like this? I believe it is obvious, because it is far better for the ipcc's position to say that the "majority" (no number still) is from anthropogenic sources..... Haha, my math is very simple to follow. It involves using the numbers provided now by both you and veedo to demonstrate what % man is responsible for GW. The quote from veedo has been 90%, and was 85% by 1950 or something, so I am pointing out how that number is wrong. And AGAIN there is a difference in man caused co2 and man caused co2 through burning fossil fuel. The ipcc isn't focusing on the difference and isn't quantifying it, which is mistruthful and misleading. Why would we even enact legislation limiting fossil fuel burning and have ipcc not even focus on how much GW is the result of specifically that??? So the math again, using the new co2 concentration. From veedo's own numbers man has caused a 4% increase in water vapor. From your own numbers man has caused the majority of a 35% increase in co2. However, we have no idea what portion of the 35% increase is due to burning fossil fuels...until anyone can site a number this value can only be assumed. I will run the math twice first with 50% of the increase in co2 being from fossil fuel burning and with man being responsible for 30% (majority). Then I will do it again with 80% coming from fossil fuels and again 30% from man. .5*.3 = 15% of the increase is from burning fossil fuels. 15/135 = 11% of the total amount of co2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels. .24*.11 = .026 = 2.6% (again assuming the largest % from wiki of co2 contribution to GW if I used the smallest 9% this would be drastically smaller) 4/104 = 3.8% of total water vapor is from man burning fossil fuels .038*.76 = .0288 = 2.9% Total contributions of GW by man burning fossil fuels is 5.5%. Substituting .5 with .8 like I said I would increases that number to .8*.3 = .24 24/135 = 18% .24*.18 = 4.32% + 2.9 = 7.22% of GW comes from burning fossil fuels. 7%!!!!!!!!! 7% of GW is currently attributed to burning fossil fuels. But why would the ipcc quote that when they can instead be more misleading and sensationalize the data thereby scaring and confusing people. "The 'majority' of co2 increases has come from anthropogenic sources." Haha...hey ipcc how about you provide a quote like "X percent of co2 increases have come from burning fossil fuels." That would actually mean something.

BTW those calculations in which man came out to be responsible for 5.2%.....that was with using the TOP number from wiki of how much GW comes from co2. If I had used the bottom number 9%....heh...well that would basically mean man was responsible for ehhhh, about 4% instead of 5.2%. And BTW just to make a point of once again how ridiculus the 90% number is: If man is responsible for all 25% increase in co2 through fossil fuels, that means 20% of the total co2 is due to man. .24 * .20 = .048 .038 * .76 = .028 7.6% Which of course is once again assuming man caused all 25% increase in co2 through burning fossil fuels. That sure is a far cry from 90% of GW. Wow.

Are you kididng???? I feel like I am wasting my time with you. To say it is unimportant what amount of the co2 produced by man comes from burning fossil fuels is absurd! Of course it matters how much comes directly from burning fossil fuels, otherwise why are we trying to enact legislations limiting the burning of fossil fuels!!!!! Dear god. See someone with an objective understanding would immediately gather from this that a) There is very little additionaly water vapor due to increased core temperature. b) The VAST majority of water vapor and therefore GW is still due to natural occurences. Exactly. Just like I pointed out in my previous post if you would have read it and understood it, the misleading way you (or the original author) was labeling it was for a reason. It is quite a different story to say man is responsible for 90% of a .6C change, than man is responsible for 90% of current GW. However, lets do some more math and test your OWN data. Using your own data .6/3 = .2 (.2)*(20) = 4% Man has caused a 4% increase in water vapor by burning fossil fuels. While man has also caused co2 increases of some X % of 25% due to burning fossil fuels. Since you didn't agree that 40% of the total co2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels and you haven't provided one, I will say 60% of total co2 is due to man and of that only 50% is from fossil fuels... Once again...if you have a sited number of the total perecentage of ALL co2 in the atmosphere that is due to man by all means provide the link! Further, I will use 76% being water vapor instead of 97 (wiki) So CO2 has increased 25%. And we are assuming 50% was from fossil fuels. thats 12.5% increase in co2 due to our fossil fuel usage. which means man using fossil fuels causes 10% of the total co2 causing GW. Man also increased water vapor by 4%, and is responsible for 3.8% of all water vapor. .10 * .24 = .024 .038 * .76 = .028 total = 5.2% Man is therefore using your numbers responsible for 5.2% of GW.