ZetaX

[quote name='Kryten']They would have been fine even of they were directly over ground zero. Bear in my mind they were at over 9km altitude.[/QUOTE] That's maybe 8km above the bomb, which should indeed be enough to survive the initial blast without problems. But I guess that very fast air currents will be created by both the blast and the released heat, so getting away from there is probably a good idea.

The Elona Gay was never in much danger from the bomb, more from being shot down. Which was a bomb more than 1000 times more powerful than those two used in WWII.

Good question. I would guess there were precedents, but maybe not as harsh as an all-out war. I can only remember smaller political turmoil about such things, though. Does anyone have real lfie examples of this? Morally I would say it could be justified, but some other solutions might be advisable first.

*sigh* Really?... I am set in a belief for which I used words such as "could", "might" and such? I am not set in any belief of that kind. I am a seeker of truth and will point out flawful arguments on any side (look up my post history if you don't believe me). Actually, I am assigning probabilities to this kind of things, and the math says that the probability of climate change being real is far too high to be ignored. But how goes the saying: "what if we changed to a better world for nothing?"

You can continue missinterpreting what I said if you wish so. I only said that you are ignorant and that this ignorance of the masses (you alone are clearly not enough) could cause many deaths; many more than from terrorism. An obvious difference is that the terrorists are willingly and consciously killing others, while the science-deniers are only killing by neglicience, arrogance or ignorance, but not on purpose.

Yes, and that is why, unlike with evolution and other recent "discussions", this is not only a matter of being right. It is a moral choice, as climate change is probably causing many deaths (if someone has an actual scientific estimate, please post it). I can easily imagine that there are many more deaths by climate change than by ISIS (or insert your terrorist organisation of choice). But the public cares only about the bloody messy deaths from the latter, while not even realising the many unknowns dying in an unknown country from thirst, hunger, lack of shelter or natural (but climate change induced) disaster.

No, apologize for coming up with numbers that are off by a factor of 100 000 (I guess you just made them up). Nobody forces you to (not) support something. But there is a certain basic adherence to truth everyone should adhere to. One of those is to not invent "arguments", and when being utterly disproven with real world data or even simple common sense (again: 1 000 000 km³ per volcano was your claim!) to keep insisting be right without change. You do not agree to disagree. You only attributed something to me I never said, and then went away after doing something that can only be called disgusting from a scientific perspective: inventing data. Edit: oh, and by the way, earth was not thought to be flat by most since millenia. Get your facts straight there, too. Also, it were again those scientists that found out that earth is not the center of the universe. But it seems you only support the scientist's opinion if it is your own, because this entire climate change business is just like back then: the common person claims that the scientists are wrong.

With what? That volcanoes just happen to spit 100km sized cubes of matter into the world, which is about 100 000 times as much as in the largest eruption in recent history (at least since the 19th century)? I hope not. Anyway, this is not a contest of agreement, but simply a matter of science. And the science says that volcanoes short of Yellowstone are not on the same order of magnitude than humanity in regard to climate.

Nowhere there is mentioned something about there being 1 000 000 km³ of volcanic ashes and such being erupted. Actually, Krakatoa is probably closer to 10km³. Yes, it had a dramatic effect on the climate, yet still it only threw only about as much stuff into the atmosphere as humanity does per year. And last but not least, the fact that it has an effect does in no way prove me wrong in saying that your numbers above are so very wrong. Instead of insisting to be right, despite your basic assumption being utterly disproven, you should apologize for such a wrong claim, and only then try to explain how you still come to your conclusion; or abandon said conclusion.

This is factually so very wrong. The yearly amount of fossil fuels spent by humanity is in the magnitude of 10km³. hence you would say that a large volcano spits out something like a million km³ of bad stuff; that's a 100km cube. Really?...

If "you are not an actual scientist" counts an insult, ok. I would say it is merely a factual statement. Compare it to "you do not own a billion dollar company" (to imply that he wouldn't know how to lead one), which, while probably something that he regrets not to be, is still not an insult. Not everyone is a scientist, and not being one is not inherently bad. But I can live with him considering it an insult, if he desires so; still not what it is intended to be.

I was clearly talking about this specific instance of an "argument". Which by the way had nothing to do with you, so what are you even talking about...

No, what you are talking about is the second leg. For which you already want to lay on a scalpel, because why not.

Your position is like "oh, we accidentely cut off a leg; no reason to stop the bleeding"...

I am taking bets that all those fierce adversaries of climate change will either forget about their position or make up excuses such as "who would have really known it ends like this?"; wouldn't be the first time in history it ends that way.

Read my last response to you again. I already explained why it is not an ad hominem. For that to be it would be necessary for this to be used as part of an argument. Instead it is more or less the conclusion: that you very definitely did not work in science-related areas. And we see that as you make claims about scientific work itself that are plain wrong, and anyone working in it would know. And in this case it is very relevant: you made claims about science's inner workings, and thuse were just wrong. At no point did I attack you. I only explained why I am very sure that you have no idea what you are talking about. WHich also turns it into a non-ad hominem, by the way. being a scientist is very very obviously strongly related to know how it works (almost by definition). And you simply are not right. You make up statistics, claims, and refuse to give ANY proof, while attributing this to all those people that would not believe you anyway (nice circular reasoning to excuse yourself from anything you got there).

There really is no debate outside politics. Scientifically, it is pretty settled. And we HAVE data from earlier times and they tell us that this is not the norm. And lots of other things disproving your claim. And "coward" is a horrible choice of words. Can I call you coward for not doing [long list of very dangerous activities] now?

Read (e.g. on wikipedia) what that actually means and realise that this completely unrelated. But I guess you are again confusing "A implies B" with "B implies A"; in this case with "not having any clue how science works" as A and "is not a scientist" as B. I would say that clearly A=>B, but B=>A might easily be wrong. Even if I had claimed B=>A, which I clearly did not, it would still not be an ad hominem by the way: it only is if the claimed property has no relevance to the claims, and I am pretty sure that not being a scientist makes you less able to know what its inner working are. - - - Updated - - - Probably not, as many of the places that are having problems with melting glaciers now did not have them in the hundreds of years before. Unless we now also add another claim that melting ice is not related to warming or similiar sillyness.

I am 100% sure you never worked in science related areas. And by the way, you yet again did not provide any proof for your claim.

If you want to know how humans tend to treat intelligences they perceive as threats you do not have to go back to Neandertals: just look how different tribes/cultures/countries treat each other. But the examples brought forward in the first post have not really to do with AI. They are essentially machine learning analogues of "we should ban butter knives because you could use them for evil deeds such as murder". The actual dangers of AI are quite different and come from what everyone else already pointed out: it possible being incompatible with human life, be it from its own or from human perspective.

The 280ppm is below the bottom line, and the increase was slower back then. Thus maybe 1920 would be where it crossed it.

That system probably does not exist. We already have ways, sometimes even implemented, to extract the usable materials in nuclear waste. After those are removed, energy production of the waste itself becomes quite pointless with current technology, as llanthas said. We really would not want to use nuclear waste as a source of energy: in comparision to a reactor we have only miniscule amounts of energy (0.1% was mentioned above, but even 5% might not be enough), while still dealing with highly radioactive stuff. Admittedly, there is probably no chance of this going critical. But it comes at much lower energy production, which causes a new problem: how to actually use that thermal energy. At the temperatures I would expect (does someone have numbers?) it might be rather inefficient.

Sadly those producing the CO2 are not even those that get hit by it most. I am pretty sure they would stop before they die; but currently, they fill everyone else's garages first, being the last ones that will face the consequences. While denying that fumes exist and/or that they are a problem.

Bill Phil: I quoted WedgeAntilles there (and when I made that post, yours wasn't there). No, it is supported by your last two posts not containing any evidence expect claims from your memory (of which I would claim some are entirely made up and/or miss quoting things). It does clearly not require a peer reviewed paper to literally look at your posts and do not see any link or such. If everything is that "obvious" as you claim, you surely will have no problem linking to trustworthy sites discussing this. So now you are claiming that it is "that" obvious we wouldn't even need to look for evidence... Yeah, that one might be correct, but it is quite obviously the least objectionable claim in your entire post. I want evidence for the not-so-obvious claims. ""linking CO2 to global warming is extremely difficult"" gives exactly _zero_ results in google. So much about that claim. Even if it actually were correct: "extremely difficult" is not weasel words, but simply shows that climate is a complicated thing. The problem here is not that, but your claim that there is likely enough sequestration going on to counter human interactions. For which you provided no evidence at all, instead pointing to the unsupported claim that it might be generation of new oil (of which at least it is rather unlikely, as we know the average over a hundred million years on that: it is much less). This is simply a lie. If you think otherwise, provide good evidence for this. Not an argument: it is you who made claims, so you ahve to prove them. I won't waste more time on someone who is that self-rightous to literally say: And for all the even more fishy things you just happened to not repeat now, I just point to peadar1987's post.

Can the self-declared "pro with statistics" [sic] finally stop posting tons of completely unsupported claims and add some actual evidence? Real statistics, studies, peer reviewed papers, this kind of things.