One little thing that a lot of people don't realize is that when temperatures and percentage changes in energy are combined you need to measure from absolute zero. The average temperature on the surface of the earth is about 58F (14.44C) which is about 288K or 518R (the Rankine scale uses Fahrenheit degrees). So in your example using an increase 0.01% in energy 100 degrees F would become 100.0518 degrees F. That means if CO2 causes a 1% increase in total energy you're talking about a temperature increase of 5.18F.
The article said the tractor produced 1100 kg of CO2 per hectare. From the article it sounds like that was for preparation (plowing?) and sowing of the crop. 1100 kg is not so much CO2. Diesel produces about 2.62 kg/liter so 1100 kg is 420 liters of diesel or 110 gallons. That works out to 45 gallons/acre which doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
It's interesting how much CO2 is produces from fossil fuel. If you look at coal it averages about 70% Carbon so a ton of coal has 1400 lbs of it. A CO2 molecule masses about 3.67 times the mass of the Carbon atom alone so burning 1 ton of coal produces about 2.57 tons of CO2. The blew me away the first time I figured it out.
Are you selection "Shortest" or "Quickest" routing? It makes a difference. Also, you can sometimes set priorities for road types, setting a preference for major roads.
Open or closed source, how can you ever be sure what the software is on a device unless you personally compiled and loaded it? And even then what about the compiler and linker you used, the OS you're using, the BIOS and even the hardware itself?
I think the situation here is that not only did you screw up on your job but the lives of all of your passengers depend on you doing your job correctly. When the lives of others depend on your job performance it takes things to a different level.
Every time you pay your health insurance premium or pay a hospital bill directly you are "shelling money out of your own pocket to pay for those without health care" whether you like it or not.
As to why I want to compel you to pay for some elses health care it's the same reason I'd be happy to pay for your health care if some drunk hits your car and you become a quadriplegic which bankrupts you and you are unable to personally pay for the care you need.
If you could deny care at ER's based on ability to pay then maybe your way would work but that's not a morality I subscribe to.
And holding the individual to be more important than the collective is the road to anarchy. There's a balance point somewhere in the middle that produces an optimal solution.
A referendum refers the legislative bill to the general voting population. You are voting on the original bill passed by the legislature, yes or no. You are not voting on whether to repeal it.
They went after cases that were out in the open and obvious enough they couldn't ignore them. But I'm not saying the D's are any better than the R's at pursuing this sort of stuff. It has more to do with the money that Wall Street interests pour into politics and they're careful to spread it around on both sides so no one is upset about them.
Well, the post was sarcastic more than insightful, but I think SEC investigations were de-emphasized by the previous administration until last year when things started to fall apart.
Yes, rather than operate like a grocery store they should operate like a farmers market. Space is provided by the operator of the farmers market for individual farmers to rent and sell their products to consumers. The providers of the wires should be separate from the providers of the services delivered over those wires.
I've thought the same thing in the past, the spirit of the law should be what applies. The problem comes in that it give judges and juries a lot of latitude on what penalties to apply leading to inconsistent application of the law.
They only go back a couple hundred years because that's the depth of the detailed, accurate instrument records. Before that climate is mostly implied from surrogate measurements like tree rings or isotope measurements.
We know approximately how much CO2 human activities produce each year. We know how many tons of coal we burn, barrels of oil we consume, cubic feet of nature gas used, how much cement we produce, etc. We can calculate how much CO2 each of those activities produces.
The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than total human emissions by a significant amount (a bit less than 50% of it remains in the atmosphere after 5 years I believe).
Logic leads me to believe if humans weren't pumping any CO2 into the atmosphere levels of CO2 would be changing significantly more slowly than they are now.
Slashdot Mirror
Garmin has a unit called the Astro for tracking hunting dogs. It isn't cheap, suggested retail price is $600.
But you'd be surprised how fast we can get there if we put our minds to it.
One little thing that a lot of people don't realize is that when temperatures and percentage changes in energy are combined you need to measure from absolute zero. The average temperature on the surface of the earth is about 58F (14.44C) which is about 288K or 518R (the Rankine scale uses Fahrenheit degrees). So in your example using an increase 0.01% in energy 100 degrees F would become 100.0518 degrees F. That means if CO2 causes a 1% increase in total energy you're talking about a temperature increase of 5.18F.
Most tractors have diesel engines and there is no lead in diesel.
The article said the tractor produced 1100 kg of CO2 per hectare. From the article it sounds like that was for preparation (plowing?) and sowing of the crop. 1100 kg is not so much CO2. Diesel produces about 2.62 kg/liter so 1100 kg is 420 liters of diesel or 110 gallons. That works out to 45 gallons/acre which doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
It's interesting how much CO2 is produces from fossil fuel. If you look at coal it averages about 70% Carbon so a ton of coal has 1400 lbs of it. A CO2 molecule masses about 3.67 times the mass of the Carbon atom alone so burning 1 ton of coal produces about 2.57 tons of CO2. The blew me away the first time I figured it out.
What individual rights are you talking about? They can't be unlimited.
The civilization we live in is a collective enterprise. Maintaining it requires collective rights. Without them the civilization would fail.
As I said there's a balance between individual and collective rights.
It's already happening.
Are you selection "Shortest" or "Quickest" routing? It makes a difference. Also, you can sometimes set priorities for road types, setting a preference for major roads.
Open or closed source, how can you ever be sure what the software is on a device unless you personally compiled and loaded it? And even then what about the compiler and linker you used, the OS you're using, the BIOS and even the hardware itself?
That was my reaction when I heard "Homeland Security" as well.
I think the situation here is that not only did you screw up on your job but the lives of all of your passengers depend on you doing your job correctly. When the lives of others depend on your job performance it takes things to a different level.
Every time you pay your health insurance premium or pay a hospital bill directly you are "shelling money out of your own pocket to pay for those without health care" whether you like it or not.
As to why I want to compel you to pay for some elses health care it's the same reason I'd be happy to pay for your health care if some drunk hits your car and you become a quadriplegic which bankrupts you and you are unable to personally pay for the care you need.
If you could deny care at ER's based on ability to pay then maybe your way would work but that's not a morality I subscribe to.
And holding the individual to be more important than the collective is the road to anarchy. There's a balance point somewhere in the middle that produces an optimal solution.
No you are voting on whether to accept the bill or not. A NO vote means you are for repealing the bill.
A referendum refers the legislative bill to the general voting population. You are voting on the original bill passed by the legislature, yes or no. You are not voting on whether to repeal it.
They went after cases that were out in the open and obvious enough they couldn't ignore them. But I'm not saying the D's are any better than the R's at pursuing this sort of stuff. It has more to do with the money that Wall Street interests pour into politics and they're careful to spread it around on both sides so no one is upset about them.
Well, the post was sarcastic more than insightful, but I think SEC investigations were de-emphasized by the previous administration until last year when things started to fall apart.
Yes, rather than operate like a grocery store they should operate like a farmers market. Space is provided by the operator of the farmers market for individual farmers to rent and sell their products to consumers. The providers of the wires should be separate from the providers of the services delivered over those wires.
Probably nobody cared to investigate it until last January or February.
In my case the sewer pipe leads -away- from my home.
How about we start with the people who suggest we can launch humans this way. After all, they'll probably volunteer for it.
If I hadn't already commented on this story you'd get my one remaining mod point. +1 Informative.
I've thought the same thing in the past, the spirit of the law should be what applies. The problem comes in that it give judges and juries a lot of latitude on what penalties to apply leading to inconsistent application of the law.
They only go back a couple hundred years because that's the depth of the detailed, accurate instrument records. Before that climate is mostly implied from surrogate measurements like tree rings or isotope measurements.
We know approximately how much CO2 human activities produce each year. We know how many tons of coal we burn, barrels of oil we consume, cubic feet of nature gas used, how much cement we produce, etc. We can calculate how much CO2 each of those activities produces.
The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than total human emissions by a significant amount (a bit less than 50% of it remains in the atmosphere after 5 years I believe).
Logic leads me to believe if humans weren't pumping any CO2 into the atmosphere levels of CO2 would be changing significantly more slowly than they are now.