There is a clear indication that the climate is trending warmer, and has been since the end of the 'little ice age'.  There is also a clear indication that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  There is not a clear connection between the two.  The environment is a very complex system and the concentration of CO2 a very small part of it.  Both the climate and the level of atmospheric CO2 are in constant flux over millienia, but the CO2 concentration tends to be a lagging indicator; implying that the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere are an effect of a warming global climate, not a cause.  Although it's certainly possible that CO2 is, itself, a feedback loop.  There is no indication, nor any logical reason to assume, that even a tripling of the amount of carbon in the air would result in a catastrophic degree of climate change.  Even a 4 degree global change would take at least a century to materialize.

Interested in a Steam code for the Humble Introversion Bundle.

That's funny, but not only do I have no corporate interest in the topic, I actually understand much of the underlying science.  At the politcal level, particularly surrounding the UN, understanding of the science and thus the real risks are lacking.  Of course, the real risks are beside the point, since the real goals of most of those political agents is to use the fear of an unknown (possible climate catastrophy) to consolidate political power at the UN level.

The best answer to what the real science says about the future of global climate is basicly "we don't really know yet".

That's going to be a real problem for audio, because PSK's strength is in the ability to produce a coherent data stream that is below the threshhold of human hearing, so anyone talking out even in the mall's promenade is going to trip the sqelch anyway.  If the sqelch limit is set high enough to exclude such nearby talk, the effective range of communication might be too limited.  More than a squelch, there needs to be a DSP filter code that simply excludes anything beyond it's assigned frequency range.

No, because the loose analogies are presented as such.

Wow, wrong right from the start...

"Bitcoin uses public-key cryptography for signing transactions. In the Bitcoin marketplace, coins are transferred between users via an exchange of keys."

EDIT:

And again right after that...

The public key serves as an address to which Bitcoins can be sent,"

(the address contains a hash of the public key, and a checksum of that hash, but not the public key itself, which is not disclosed until funds are sent away from that address.  I'm sure someone will correct me if I wrong here.)

I meant, generally, with regard to fossil fuels.  The drop from 7K in the Cambrian is likely due to the rise and spread of multicellular plantlife, which maintains a certain level of sequesterd carbon in the cycle of life.

Could you be more specific about what you are talking about?  From what I know, the Swiss Franc has been debased as much as the rest of the world.  There are a lot of things that happen that have little to do with the relative quality of the currency.

As for what can happen to a bitcoin economy, honestly we don't know.  The bitcoin economy is truly global, there is no 'currency friction' from floating exchange rates that businesses have to be aware of, at least if they stick to bitcoin.  This is not so for the Swiss Franc, for there must always be exchange into other currencies for trade.  In a world of floating fiat currencies, a rapid change in relative quality is generally undesirable because it upsets international trade.  This is the primary reason that the Swiss Franc is being devalued along with the Euro.  Bitcoin is sounder currency, but again, does not necessarily need to be exchanged for other currencies in an international trade setting.

Assuming that chart is correct, and not just some made up bs, then that implies that the level of CO2 in the air before sequesteration was about 3K ppm, and that all of the fossil fuels were created during the Teritary.  So relatively recently.  Humanity might actually be able to notice 3K ppm directly, because we use the concentration of CO2 in our lungs and bloodstream to tell us when to exhale.  A level so high might trigger the sensation of suffocation in some people.  Regardless, if a CO2 feedback mechanism exists in nature, a level anywhere near 3K ppm would have destroyed all life; so obviously one cannot exist.

First off, it's not a one-way media.  Every smartphone has both a speaker and a microphone.  Second, using psk500 or something similar to transmit complete blocks into a specific shortwave frequency would allow specialized devices that don't have or need direct Internet access to collect a blockchain on a continuous basis.

That's an interesting graph, but there are no scales to make comparisons.

And since it's already java based, an Android app should be trivial.

Okay, I have to admit, that's just slick.  Sortof like NFC by sound alone.  But how long would it take to transmit an entire transaction at psk250?  Could the carrier be set so that it's all below human hearing?  Or would that even be desireable?  Certainly don't want it set too high, for if it can be heard the higher pitches are annoying.

Why not?  The concentration of CO2 in the air would still be less than 700 parts per million in the atmosphere if we could consume it all, which we can't.  Most of the climate models for the worst case are based on us being able to hit less than 500 parts per million.  We wouldn't even notice that directly, although even trees would grow like weeds.  The only way we notice is if the heat feedback cycles are true, but as I have pointed out, that carbon was in the air before and there is no evidence that the Earth was ever so hot in the past as to threaten life or suggest that a negative feedback exists.  There have been trees growing on islands North of the North-West Passageway, which is north of Canada's Northern Territories and is presently permafrost.  That alone implies that the Earth can be much warmer than it is presently and not be catastrophic.

EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island#Paleontology

No, not quite.  I'm saying that all of the carbon locked up into fossil fuels, and thus available to humanity to put into the atmosphere, was already there at one point before the plantlife that sequestered it put it into the ground.  Therefore the burning of fossil fuels alone, even if it were possible for us to get all of it, could not logicly lead to a catastrophic 'negative feedback' of climate events, as is imagined by a great many of the models used by those who argue for dramatic geo-political changes to prevent such disasters.  An Inconvient Truth is an example of taking such a dramtic view of the possible outcomes, without considering the fact that I present above.  I can find no evidence that geologists disagree with the above statement, that the carbon sequestered into the Earth was put there by plantlife and thus was present in the atmosphere at the time.  Feel free to prove me wrong on that point, or any other.  But my point was, plantlife evolved in this environment, so it's logically inconsistant to present AGW worst case as being able to destroy life of this planet.  I don't even think that it could destroy human life, although it could become difficult for the present number of human beings to live here.  If AGW is correct (or maybe if it isn't, and we still overheat) the greater part of humanity is either going to have to leave or perish, but if the worst case is unlikely (which it is fairly unlikely in any case, by definition) and we get 2 degrees C or less of worldwide warming, that would actually be a net gain for humanity at large, due to the large expanses of agricultural land opened up in the Northern latitudes.  People who live on Islands or right on the coast might be screwed, however.

It doesn't matter how cheap the hardware is, for whatever the attacker can buy the honest nodes can buy.  The difficulty simply adjusts to whatever is being used.

Right off the bat you undermine yourself.  The carbon found in the ocean is dissolved CO2.  It doesn't change a thing, for if enough of it were dissolved in to the oceans in order to permit plantlife to evolve, there is no reason that the same wouldn't occur now.  Actually, it's more likely that the ocean can hold more CO2 today, because the ability of water to hold CO2 in a stable state goes down as the temp rises.  This is one of the negative feedback cycles that the worst of the climate models depend upon.


Now this is a good point.  The first form of life to use photosysthisis, whatever you want to call them, were single celled and lived in water.  I can't see how that alters the point, but feel free to expound on that.

Yes, it would have been an alien world, but I'm not making assumptions.  The premises that I base this thought experiment upon are accepted facts among just about anyone concerned about climate change.  (Since most creationists are not concerned about climate change, I'm leaving them out of the conversation for simplicity). 

The givens are...

The Earth is a closed system, thus there cannot be any more or less carbon or oxygen (nominally) than there was when life arose on this planet.

The Earth is assumed to have been molten hot, and cooled down over a very long period of time, primarily via net infrared radiation.  (more heat was lost to the dark side of the planet than was gained on the Sun side)

There is, and therefore was, much more oxygen available in this hot environment than carbon; thus most of the carbon that was not already in a very stable molecule (such as minerals) would have been consumed by the oxygen.  Therefore, any hydrocarbons (not stable in a hot environment in the presence of oxygen) that arose in any non-organic fashion would have been burned.

So I'm excluding the carbon sequestered before the dawn of life in, say, diamonds.  If you can show that diamonds and the like can be burned, then this argument might not hold up.

So, generally speaking, all of the hydrocarbons that were sequestered in the Earth's crust before the Industrial Age led to humanity drawing them out to burn them and let them enter the atmosphere was already there at the dawn of life on this planet.  Yet the Earth not only cooled to it's current state, it's been much colder.  And it's been much warmer, also.  Neither condition implies that a catastrophic level of climate change is possible, at least not catastrophic to humanity on the Earth as a whole.  It does imply that there is a balancing mechanism at play that we don't fully understand, that permits these long cycles between a warm planet overall and an Ice Age.  It does not imply that CO2 is the primary driver for these cycles, although it's almost certainly contributing.  Keep in mind that any increase in the ambient CO2 in the air has been proven to promote plant growth, all other factors kept the same.  So increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost certainly beneficial for plantlife.  For that matter, so would a general increase in the climate temps along the higher latitudes.

Ah, no.  Then you don't understand the argument.  At some point in the history of the  planet, life did not exist and effectively all of the carbon locked up into fossil fuels was in the atmosphere; because elemental carbon is unstable and the presence of significantly more oxygen and a molten hot planet means that any hydrocarbons would have been burned up anyway.  Logicly, plant life had to form in this environment in order for the carbon to be sequestered in the first place, so at one point all of the carbon present in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere first.  That's the worst case scenario and yet we exist.

Carbon is not normally elemental.  It's either found in hydrocarbons or afixed to oxygen in some fashion.  CO2 is carbon's most stable form, and since oxygen is significantly more likely to occur in nature than carbon, finding carbon in a natural state of CO2 is, in fact, quite normal.


Not relevant.  There has always been orders of magnitude more free oxygen available in the atmosphere, both before and after the rise of plantlife.

Generally, yes.
I don't know, but it's irrelevent to the point.  It was all there before life came to exist, (excluding that which was in the mantle, core and crust; but that's still there and will continue to be even if we burn every scrap of fossil fuels in the world, which is also not practially possible) so the concept that putting a portion of it back wince it came would result in a ELE is rediculous on it's face.

Yes, to a degree.  But that's the point I'm trying to make.  It was multicellular life that became oil, natural gas and coal.  It is probable that a single celled form of life was important in the chemical changes that resulted in their present forms, but the vast majority of the carbon sequestration occured by multicellular plant life.


That is, in fact, exactly what I wrote.

Okay, so what is to prevent the current presence of plants from doing the same in the future?  What I'm asking is, under what basis is the assumption that carbon dioxide, even though it's a greenhouse gas, that CO2 doubling in the atmosphere is catastrophic for life?  After all, as you have pointed out, before life evolved the Earth was far hotter until the magma on the surface cooled.  Since the Earth is a closed system, the amount of oxygen present then is roughly the same as it is now, just like the amount of carbon dioxide.  Under such conditions, it's practially impossible for any significant amount of the carbon to have been sequestered in any other form than CO2.  So practically speaking, all of the carbon was part of the atmosphere in Earth's own history, and yet the Earth still cooled and life still came to dominate the surface of the Earth.  If it's all a matter of speculation, then it's just as likely, if not moreso, that consuming all of the fossil fuels available to us (which wouldn't come close to putting all of the carbon back into the atmosphere) would result in a warmed climate only comparable to the Medivel Warm Period, which was far from catastrophic for humankind.


Could be, but based upon what?  After all, by many respects humanity is far more resilient a species than any of the dinosaurs were; because our human intelligence permits us to develop clothing and housing that permits us to live in the harshest of conditions found on Earth if we desire to.  There is an entire town in Australia that is underground in the outback to escape the heat, while there are semi-permanent encampments in Antartica for scientific research teams.  The Vikings lived in areas of the world that didn't see a sunrise for 5 months at at time, much less a spring thaw.  I contend that even a truly catastrophic degree of global warming, to the worst case scenario, isn't a threat to the majority of human life of this planet; althought it could be to a great many.  I also contend that a much more mild degree of warming is more likely, on the order of 1 to 1.5 degree C, and would be a net improvement for human life on this planet.  After all, such a more moderate form of climate warming would result in the warming of the majority of the land mass that remains uninhabitable on Earth; most of which is the Canadian Northern Territories, Siberia in Russia and Greenland.  Greenland could literally be green, and the loss of coastal landmass would be neglible compared to that expansion of habitable space and agricultural landmass.  And at less than +2 degrees C, even the worst case climate models don't result in a statisticly significant increase in major weather patterns.  Nor would the change in climate become too hot near the equator, since the majority of the warming occurs in the higher latitudes.  (This is largely because the greenhouse effect occurs from long wave infrared bouncing off of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, and the general scatter of reflected light spreads in all directs evenly; if the heat then returns to Earth at the equator, it's a net zero change in heat at the equator, but if it returns at the northern latitudes, it's a net gain for the northern latitudes while a net loss for the equator)