Slashdot Mirror

"When you're burning millions of dollars worth of fuel per second, anything less than ideal is really bad"

That makes me wonder if the Peregrine rocket will ever be viable for putting payloads into orbit: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-...

Even if it is less efficient, if it can actually put payloads into orbit, it may still be more cost-effective. Most of the articles I've seen on it have been lacking detailed capabilities and technical hurdles it needs to overcome, though.

When the permafrost thaws, the carbon in it starts getting converted to CO2 and methane. There's enough carbon in the permafrost to torch the planet.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Geoengineering options include increasing albedo through deforestation.

That's not strictly true. It's correct if you want to get there (the sun or leave the solar system) in one shot. But if you're willing to do multiple passes (slingshot maneuvers) around planets, you can get there for a lot less energy. (Non-wiki link because the Wikipedia article doesn't really explain it.)

It's easier to do this with the inner planets because (1) they're closer together so you don't have to wait as long for multiple flybys, and (2) they orbit more quickly so you don't have to wait as long for the proper orbital configuration. Cassini was launched this way, doing multiple passes around Venus, then another by Earth to pick up more velocity on its way to Saturn. So overall I suspect it's actually easier to send something into the sun (after passing inner planets multiple times) than it is to shoot it out of the solar system.

I've seen some misunderstandings in several posts that warrant correction at the top level.

Dealing with relativistic speeds is an engineering problem, and not necessarily a difficult (at least when compared with other challenges of interstellar travel) one.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-...

Deceleration with light sails is a solved problem, at least on paper. I'm not aware of any deployed examples.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/21...

Reference - they didn't even try to hide it and nope, it has nothing to do with partisanship - they're all guilty, and like Douglas Adams said about Zaphod, they're just there to distract from the actual power.
I guess I can put these in here without disturbing the sleepers, by this time no one else is following this thread anyway, right? https://phys.org/news/2011-10-... I have lots more if you care. I'm rather sick of having to apologize to my friends overseas for being American. We lost control of our government long ago, and apparently have no remedy short of acts no one reasonable wants to contemplate.
Since those in power have made it legal to tell us lies, and even pay to learn to do it better, shutting down dissent is bad, even when that dissent is wrong. We need it if for no other reason than to let crazies self-identify, and promote critical thinking.
But someone else doesn't agree and modded the comment you agreed with down!

In an intricate maneuver by "rock star" pilots at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, two supersonic T-38 jets flew just 30 feet (nine meters) apart below another plane waiting to photograph them with an advanced, high-speed camera, the agency said.

Source: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-...

Besides of mentioning that advanced high-speed camera they do not disclose the rest of the setup they used. Does this mean that the need for a dedicated light source (replaced by the sun) and a parabolic mirror can be eliminated these days? Well, at least when it comes to performing measurements on these scales.
Modern high-speed cameras are already able to pick up shock waves from explosions, which was a big audience favourite on shows like Mythbusters.
It's good to see things progress and getting simpler.

Actually, maybe there *are* some interesting possibilities...

Turns out there was a major problem with the study it said it was.

Also the ocean temperature drops rapidly as you go lower, the ocean temperature just a few feet down is not going to be changing much at all. Lots of fish spend most time below the very top layer.

The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.

Human fishing is well known as the key force in seafood population. Clearly it significantly dwarfs any climate based impact to date, so much I can't see how they could fully account for that impact without the rest being in the statistical noise zone, even though they claim they can do that.

However, if some species are know to flourish with warming while others struggle, shifting to fish more of the flourishing ones and less of the strugglers wouldn't be a bad thing to shoot for.

Turns out there was a major problem with the study it said it was.

Also the ocean temperature drops rapidly as you go lower, the ocean temperature just a few feet down is not going to be changing much at all. Lots of fish spend most time below the very top layer.

The decline in fish populations is more likely a result of overfishing, something we should be working against - but thankfully there are quite a lot of fish farms these days, so the supply of fish for the world to eat is not as threatened as the summary makes it out to be.

No links, no mention of where temperature recordings were made.

If full links were provided to all the data, would you believe them ?

If no, why ask for links ?

If yes, then why are you doubting the conclusion ?

Links? We got links! https://edition.cnn.com/2019/0... https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25... https://phys.org/news/2019-01-... https://www.standard.co.uk/new...

Pages and pages of links.

I'll just note that I haven't found one Fox News link yet, as they are busy showing that Global warming is a hoax........

It snowed in Seattle, you know.

I can live with paying an extra half cent per kWh to cover cleaning up after the occasional disaster every 25 years, in exchange for using a completely carbon-neutral power source which boasts the fewest deaths per amount of power generated. Why exactly are you opposed to it?

The first is that information related to this subject is heavily censored. The information you have provided is from organizations who are restricted in what they are allowed to publish.

Money isn't the main consideration. The impact of a single disaster is. Fukushima was four disasters at once and considering the amount of spent fuel rods stored on the site had the potential to be an extinction level event. It still does as the removal process has stalled with 566 rods remaining in a precarious position in the heavily damaged Unit 3 spent fuel pool. Tepco itself acknowledges this as the most potent risk for a much more serious disaster than the original.

At this point though it is worthwhile to point out that Tepco has removed approximately 1000 spent fuel rods - which is an enormous effort that should be commended, with gratitude to the workers and engineers that continue to risk their lives to eliminate this risk.

"The basics of chemical storage of energy means that no battery can ever be as energy dense as gasoline"

Molten-air batteries of iron, carbon and vanadium boride have impressive numbers

https://phys.org/news/2013-09-...

watt-hrs per kg are 1400, 8900 and 5300 while the per liter numbers are 10k, 19k and 27k
Gasoline is 12,200 watt-hrs per kg and 9700 per liter. Gasoline's significant per-kg advantage is diminished by it being consumed during use. Of course there are many hurdles to overcome for molten-air batteries so they won't be commercially available any time soon.

Really? Just last year a cooperation effort discovered that water is actually two different liquids.

The natural world is full of wonders. There is more between the heavens and the earth than we can imagine in our wildest dream, and the unbelievable damage that religion and mysticism have done to the human race in distracting us away from those wonders into make-believe fantasy bullshit will one day be remembered as the highest crime against humanity.

Wherever we look, whenever we think that "science is over", someone makes a freak discovery and whole new worlds open up. So did Tesla know about something we don't? Maybe not in the sense of having a complete understanding of it, but he was an experimental guy, and may well have discovered something that even if he couldn't explain it he had an idea how and what to use it for.

You would not be correct, but that's your opinion.

I think this paper supports your argument however it appears that some government web sites ( energy.gov) are still shutdown. You may find this article interesting.

It is about the US being paranoia and hypocritical, as well as FUDing the American people like they did before the Iraq War.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-cellphones-gaining-schools.html

The nation's largest school system, New York City, is among those that have abandoned strict bans, which had some students paying $1 a day to store phones in specialty trucks parked nearby before heading into school. Mayor Bill de Blasio fulfilled a campaign pledge when he lifted the ban in 2015, saying it would help parents stay in touch with their children.

Phones have offered a lifeline between students and the outside world during recent school emergencies. As a gunman rampaged through Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Feb. 14, students used cellphones to text their parents, call 911 and to record and share their horror.

and just as intelligent.

And with brains bigger than those of modern humans.
Curious, huh?

We get upset at CEOs who only care about the next quarters profits but as a species we rarely look ahead more than a year. Case in point everyone knew the Grand-banks fisheries off Canada's east coast were on the verge of collapse and yet we fished them right up to the point of nearly wiping out the cod there. Canadians dump more than 22 tons of GHG per person into the atmosphere (and BTW that's not counting the rotting pine forests). We beat the Americans by over 10% and yet we are doing almost nothing. If you can't get a well educated population that actually thinks climate change is a problem to change their ways there is no hope.

I get that fishing could be stopped but I don't see what the proposed solution to rotting pine forests is. In fact I hadn't heard of the problem but when I researched a few minutes what I think you're refering to is a beetle infestation. But it looks like that is not going to be a problem soon as found here: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-...

And they contract out learning how to lie (note date): https://phys.org/news/2011-10-...
Yeah, it's getting boring having to repeat facts over and over here....

You're right, it's an obscure phrase that people only used briefly on obscure websites years ago.

https://www.theverge.com/2013/...
https://techcrunch.com/2018/07...
https://mashable.com/article/f...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/...
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/sc...
https://gizmodo.com/dark-patte...
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-...
https://www.extremetech.com/in...
https://venturebeat.com/2018/0...
https://sdtimes.com/addiction/...
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/15...

I can't help but think this is just spitting into the wind. There are lots of chemicals which potentially harm reefs. Oxybenzone and octinoxate just get picked on because there was already a large conspiracy theory-ish movement to get those two banned, which quickly latched on to any alternative reason to ban them.

if you look at all chemicals we add to the water which potentially harms coral, fertilizer would seem to be the biggest culprit. And we dump probably a trillion times more fertilizer into the oceans (via agricultural runoff) than sunscreen. These sunscreen bans are like making a fuss over a tiny crack in the road, while ignoring the smoking mile-wide crater.

I can't believe this has idea has reared it's head again. You're substituting one problem for a whole other set of problems. Here are some pertinent facts: There is only enough accessible Uranium ore to supply reactors for at most 80 years . It can take 40 years to completely decommission a reactor, longer than it's useful life. Nuclear waste can be unsafe for 10,000 years. This is not to mention the extraordinary build costs, which are only viable with government backing, nor the seemingly inevitable construction delays. That's not even touching on the accidents. In Japan old people are volunteering to clean up Fukashima because they know they're going to die anyway. For the price of one reactor, you could probably build a wind farm of much higher capacity. Hook it to a huge battery, and you're sorted. There are 441 reactors in the world, we don't need any more.

They just want to see how well their control the narrative program is working, since propaganda falsehoods were made legal by the previous administration. Not making it up: https://phys.org/news/2011-10-... I assume most here are old enough to know what was in the NDAA and when it was signed?
But it's all the latest guy's fault, right?
NO politician is innocent, in truth. The reality is more like HItchhiker's guide = their job is to distract attention from the real power.
This has been going on for all of the many decades I've watched events. No politician is innocent, and for quite some time, there's been no war they didn't like. No big financial crime that wasn't "too big to jail". And a lot of more contentious items that are partisan, which in my view is just the bread and circuses used to distract us while the real power runs off with the rest of our wealth and individual freedom.

The strongest statement in the scientific paper is "The noise amplitude tends to increase with the shares of intermittent renewables." One of the key findings is that trading causes relatively huge fluctuations which occur every 15 minutes as trading occurs at this interval. So claiming that "renewables compromise grid stability" is very much exaggerated.

The actual research your linked article refers to is here:
https://www.nature.com/article...

ArXiv link is here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.084...

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-...

Pacific islands are overwhelmingly growing, very few are going away. Adding land typically doesn't qualify for "going bye-bye"... But scary phrases and lies rule the day, eh?

New research shows that the "pause" supposedly found in global warming was not real. We are still riding the temperature rocket upward to an eventual hell on Earth and creating the next Venus.

Solution
CO2 Outline

More concerning CO2 Emissions items that could be fixed only with the stroke of a pen:
Brazil’s new president plans to plunder the Amazon
U.S. Law
A Century of Fire Suppression Is Why California Is in Flames : California’s forests emitted more carbon than they soaked up between 2001 and 2010

It literally says there was a fizzle involved. The isotopic evidence is there. If you're too obtuse to see it, then I can't help you. The authors don't "agree with GP". And they may not be alone.

https://auto.xprize.org/prizes...
http://edison2.com/the-x-prize...
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/0...
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-...

You're a lazy son of a bitch.

Now in a new study, physicists have shown that quantum shortcuts are subject to a trade-off between speed and cost, so that the faster a quantum system evolves, the higher the energetic cost of implementing the shortcut. In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, an infinitely fast speed would be impossible since it would require an infinite amount of energy.

Bla bla bla... You really don't know when to quit, do you?

When I said "make up stuff" I was obviously talking about vaguely defining some model that is not backed up by observation whatsoever. When you say that "we cannot simply deduce the behaviors of plasmas", then you're basically admitting that you can't model them, so you don't even have an hypothesis to test.

I keep repeating: if you want to take on mainstream cosmology, then create a consistent and testable hypothesis, and publish it. Blabbering about it on Slashdot to a single person is not going to help. Even assuming I work in the field, nothing you said has convinced me, quite the contrary.

The simple truth is, our Lambda-CDM computer models produce results that are strikingly similar to the actual universe.
Your models are basically, hey it's electric plasma with a bunch of new physics, but we don't know how it works yet, so we can't simulate it. And then you are surprised that the former is mainstream and the latter is fringe.

You are not even wrong. I feel like I'm getting dumber just by reading your posts. That's the last I'm going to say about it. I have better things to do with my life.

There is no "agenda" at play other than to understand the landscape of the debate. In the world of tracking scientific controversies, identifying the arguments and claims is the mundane precursor to actual independent thought.

Lol. The landscape of the debate? Good grief, now wonder 1/4 of the posts on this story are yours. Here's a hint: you don't win a debate by talking more than your opponent.
As for agenda: it's clearly to make sure that my thoughts are compatible with your "independent" thoughts, which are really just regurgitations of bad ideas from other scientists.

This argument is not well thought out. The physics of quasars is not understood, and you do no service to anybody pretending as though you can tell us what it cannot be.

Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean you can just make up stuff. You're not even specific about the stuff you make up, it's just hand waving.
There is no way that your magical new quasar physics suddenly changes the results of some of the most precise physical measurements we have ever made.

But all that is irrelevant because even *if* a variable electron would cause an intrinsic redshift at the source of emitted light, that still would not explain why the absorption lines of interstellar neutral hydrogen between the quasar and us, is *also* redshifted in a way that goes from zero to the quasar's redshift (i.e. in-between values). If the quasar is not really at redshift Z, it cannot illuminate these clouds that are up to redshift Z. And, like I said before, at those distances your intrinsic redshift would have no effect on the Hydrogen, it would have to be caused by normal cosmological redshift. Look into Lyman-alpha forest (yeah, Wikipedia, I trust you'll find better sources).

The mainstream is constantly reminding us of how luminous and energetic these objects are, based upon their inferred redshift, so whatever point you are trying to make, you should think more deeply about it.

The point that I am making, but you're not hearing is that you present no evidence that mainstream science is wrong. And no, 50 year old papers don't cut it, we learned a lot since then.

There is a long history of speculators who have formerly claimed that they can reason with electrostatics principles at astrophysical scales. This is one of the anti-patterns which I document online (so you will now be documented with the others).

Oh noes! Lol.
You clearly have no idea what electrostatic attraction is about. What you describe is static electricity, which is only a small aspect of it.
Electrostatics are more fundamental and described by QED (which also describes the dynamic aspects obviously). Electrostatic attraction occurs whenever you have a charge imbalance in different places, which as you claim is the case with your electron-deficient quasars. And whether those charges are in a plasma or not doesn't change the fact that positive and negative charges are attracted to each other.

Part of the problem here is what happens to an electrostatic discharge when it encounters a plasma double layer.

See, it's things like these that make me wonder if your post was constructed by a bot. It is a digression that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Let me summarize it for you: Yes, there is plasma in space, but it's mostly confined to star-like objects. Yes, there are currents and magnetic fields in space, but relatively weak and on galactic scales. No, these are not needed to model the universe. Charges and field cancel each other out. Gravity dominates the larger scales.
If you model a universe in a computer, the smallest cells are about the size of a galaxy, so that's the bottom scale we're talking about. Plasma physics is i

Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.

Coral atolls grow higher when sea levels rise. The question is one of rates. As long as the sea level rises are slow enough, the atolls will be more or less fine. But if the water rises faster than the corals can grow, they'll be inundated. Massive corals of the sort that make up these atoll reefs can grow up to 5mm per year. Over the 20th century the average annual sea level increase was 1.7mm. No problem, they can keep up with that. Since the 90s the rate has averaged 3.2mm per year. The corals can handle that, too... but the rate doesn't have to accelerate much more to overwhelm them.

Indeed, even at current rates, islands are having problems. I was on Rarotonga last month, in the Cook Islands. Natives there told me that their lagoons used to be two to three times deeper than they are now. The problem is that seas are crashing higher over the reefs and depositing more sand, causing the lagoons to fill in. This has created problems for fishing and for the tourist industry (snorkeling in a foot of water isn't much fun). However, it's expected that over the next 20 years the waves will rise higher yet and begin removing sand from the lagoons and the beaches, reversing the shallowing trend and then beginning to eat away at the island. Rarotonga will be fine; it's volcanic and rises over 2000 feet above sea level at its highest point. At worst people will have to move inland a little bit. But it could easily devastate the already-fragile island economy.

I was also on Mangaia and they're facing a different problem. Much of the island's fresh water supply comes from inland lakes which flow through tunnels in the makatea (fossil coral) to the ocean. But sea levels have risen enough that during storms water now flows in through the tunnels, turning the lakes brackish. This is having serious effects on the island ecosystems as well as making fresh water harder to come by.

The bottom line is that for many islanders, climate change is already having very real and very visible effects, mostly due to rising sea levels. And it's going to get much worse. And many low-lying coral atolls may just disappear when the rate of sea level rise exceeds the rate at which the corals can grow.

Data shows that coral-based islands (like the Marshalls) are growing. Eighty percent are either stable or growing. Tuvalu has added 3% more land in the last 50 years, and the Maldives, which famously held a cabinet meeting underwater to show their nation is doomed has no change in land area over the last 60 years.

NASA has had much success at exploring Mars. But what about some of the other rocky planets? Why do they only get flybys or orbitals?

Budget.

NASA's budget is quite small, and NASA only gets to use a fraction of that on planetary probes, with the preponderance consumed by congress-mandated SLS and ISS manned programs.

Let NASA shut down the SLS, and spent that money on landers, and you'll see them dropping landers on the other rocky planets.

They do also plan this hopper lander for Titan.

DARPA even let a contract to learn how to do it better: https://phys.org/news/2011-10-...
In 2011 - note which head of the uniparty was running things at that time. They then passed the NDAA which made outright telling the public lies a legal act - along with other horrible totalitarian enablers.
I think it partially explains the current frenzy. Horrible powers of overreach were handed the executive with no thought who might wield them next. And now, in some people's opinion, the wrong guy has those powers. Not that he's used then anything like the previous war and surveillance and monger and enricher of the MiC.
Posting unpopular/uncomfortable facts anon...Lack of friction can be useful.

Caveat: I'm an armchair bystander, not a physicist, so the following is just my layman's view.

As a researcher hoping to contribute to a larger project (ITER) you have to choose your focus, this is to min/max your contribution (read: published papers) according to your research budget. This group chose to go for the high temperature numbers, understandably, because it makes for a great press release and helps to secure budget for the next experiment. Their principal engineering contribution seems to be a pioneering use of superconducting magnets.

Ten seconds is actually a decently long time to maintain a plasma, it seems they have in mind to increase that by two orders of magnitude by improving this equipment, but that is still plenty of time to read out a whole lot of data. The last thing they want to do is burn up a lot of expensive hardware on an early test run by running it until it melts. Doesn't make for such a great press release, it eats up the budget and lays waste to the timeline.

You're hardly going to get good technical information from a press release, but there is plenty of good non-paywalled info on EAST out there on the net. From a quick look, I don't know how much heat they are generating from fusion at this point, but since they don't say much about it, I presume it is essentially all from external sources, and improving the external energy injection mechanisms is a major goal of their project. Ignition is not a goal of their project, it is not even a goal of ITER.

See, isn't this a whole lot more interesting than jumping onto the internet and swearing a lot while advertising your ignorance? You could have googled it first, just like I did.

The only box left that would change things is the ammo box. Sure you want to go there?
The parties have made it impossible for a 3rd party to compete. When orange man slipped by the usual selection process, they and their MSM lackeys went nuts. Wouldn't matter even if orange man was actually good. "It's the principle of the thing" when those in power see it slipping away. The attempt to control the narrative is becoming a desperate failure. Citations:
https://phys.org/news/2011-10-... - please note the date on this one.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

It's a lie or at least bad math to say that accumulated cyclone energy has been trending downward for 30 years. It's rather flat overall for the last 30 years, and has decreased over the last 10 years due to natural variation:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

I know the deniosphere loves to try to fit declining curves against this short-term spiky but long-term flat graph, but this technical number is not that important and the only one that doesn't show a clear upward trend. Hurricane frequency is steadily increasing:

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-...

Also hurricane intensity and power dissipation are sharply increasing:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

These numbers are more practically relevant than accumulated cyclone energy, and you can see it where the rubber hits the road: in the clear upward trend in storm & flood damage costs, even against our improving preparedness:

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-...

Also while strong tornadoes are decreasing and tornado energy is flat, tornado count is steadily increasing:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...

It's a lie or at least bad math to say that accumulated cyclone energy has been trending downward for 30 years. It's rather flat overall for the last 30 years, and has decreased over the last 10 years due to natural variation:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

I know the deniosphere loves to try to fit declining curves against this short-term spiky but long-term flat graph, but this technical number is not that important and the only one that doesn't show a clear upward trend. Hurricane frequency is steadily increasing:

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-...

Also hurricane intensity and power dissipation are sharply increasing:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

These numbers are more practically relevant than accumulated cyclone energy, and you can see it where the rubber hits the road: in the clear upward trend in storm & flood damage costs, even against our improving preparedness:

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-...

Also while strong tornadoes are decreasing and tornado energy is flat, tornado count is steadily increasing:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc...

And the US Air Force

I've checked the link in the article. I've sourced the original press release. Where are the pictures?

here https://phys.org/news/2018-10-...
here https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/...
here https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/...

Haha, I could nitpick a bit more.
Photons existed, but the universe was not transparent ... I think you mean when nuclei captured electrons?
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-...

BTW: CMBR has nothing to do with the time when the universe became transparent.

You mean like from nuclear power? Lowest CO2 energy source we know of, safest energy source we know of, and as "renewable" as solar power because there is enough thorium and uranium on Earth that we'd never be able to burn it all before the sun consumes the planet.

I'd like to see somebody start making thorium-fueled nuclear power plants; the hype sure makes it sound like a good solution. But so far it's not being done.

Uranium fueled plants, on the other hand, actually have a pretty limited amount of fuel available-- not a problem with the world currently using only about 2% of its power from nuclear sources (*), but if we went to 100%, there's only about 5 years (!!) of fuel.

Some data:
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf

This can be solved by reprocessing spent fuel, and by going to breeder reactors. But governments don't want to do that because of fear of nuclear terrorism.

*(nuclear generates 14% of the world electrical production, but electricity is only a small fraction of the world energy use)

You can googleit, lots of people have studied it. However, you're missing the point that carbon particulates are not the main problem.
The theory of the role of CO2 in Climate change didn't start with a graph.. it started with physics. Is there an explanation to how we can add >6,701,400 TWh/yr from radiative imbalance without heating the planet? What is it? Is the math wrong? If it's right how can global warming be false?

Air temperature is completely irrelevant to any informed discussion of manmade global warming. The fixation on air temperature by denier commentators and the media is an irritating distraction as it disregards basic laws of physics (which are taught in grade 11 in high school):

- The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics - the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
- When assessed from the top of the atmosphere, the earth is in substance a closed system, subject only to the incoming and outgoing flows of radiative energy.
- NASA has repeatedly confirmed that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are causing a net energy imbalance of approximately one half Watt per square metre the top of the atmosphere. See: http://phys.org/news/2012-01-n...
- This surplus energy (equivalent to roughly the energy which would be released by the detonation of 300,000 Hiroshima bombs each and every day) is for the most part accumulating in the oceans, from which it will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase the air temperatures on Earth.
- As previously noted, numerous studies have fully accounted for the additional energy which is accumulating in the deep oceans as a consequence of manmade global warming.
- The continuing massive additions to the total energy of the globe means that any apparent delay in the continuing increases in air as well as water temperatures are bound to be short lived, as water temperatures continue to rise.
- The all-time record high global monthly temperatures for May and June of this year suggests that some of the energy accumulating in the oceans may well be making its way back into the atmosphere.

I would ask those who believe there to be any doubt about AGW to posit a credible theory and some evidence that the planet is not in an energy imbalance (the energy imbalance has been repeatedly demonstrated by the vast majority of peer reviewed scientific studies, and has been accepted by all national and international scientific bodies of any standing).

Or, alternatively, explain how they have managed to repeal the law of conservation of energy, such that the additional energy trapped by the AGW energy imbalance is magically disappearing rather than accumulating in the oceans from which it will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase the air temperatures on Earth.

"mad cow came from human bones" --- maybe maybe . Needs more research.

Might be worth mentioning in this context that scientists have recently published results of experiments showing that graphene is able to turn alternating electric currents in the GHz range into electric currents in the THz range: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-... Thus, instead of using graphene just as some structured base material, it may make a lot of sense to actually build the electronic circuit itself from graphene.

Well, going by his.. other team? (Dr. Liu), these types of cells apparently don't even make two years. So either they have to be dirt cheap and easily replaced, or they'll have to work on extending the life. Personally though, more interested if the materials involved aren't as... well.. 'Chinese Lakes of Toxic Sludge'. I'd count that as a win, regardless the rest.

And expressing concern about a business is just being friendly, right? "Nice restaurant you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it!"

As if there was no pre-existing dispute with the EU concerning Facebook's compliance with consumer protection laws. Oh wait, there is!

The question is whether government should criminalize speech that is not accompanied by a crime. The EU and you obviously think government should. I think you are reprehensible authoritarians and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your beliefs.

Nice strawman that you've built. Now please connect the consumer protection laws like the GDPR to criminaliation of speech. Because if you cannot, you cannot say that that is what I think (not that you could anyway), and I hope decent people will ostracize you for your logical fallacy.

BTW, you're a bigot for claiming that I should be ostracized, so welcome to the club that you placed me in.

But there is no "paradox": despite the offensiveness of your beliefs, I'm not calling for them to be criminalized.

See above. Now throw out the strawman and return to reality.

The whole point of Schrodinger's cat experiment was to show that trying to apply certain quantum physics theories to reality resulted in absurd results.
To him (and Einstein), it was obvious that the cat could not be both alive and dead, and therefore the people pushing the superposition theory were obviously wrong.

It's a shame that his thought experiment has been taken to mean the exact opposite of what he was originally talking about.