The textbook example for this is trees. They can lift a column of aqueous solution way into the air by dint of capillarity, temperature effects, surface tension, and various other effects, which AFAIK still aren't completely understood.
The siphon stopped working at 018 atm. It's perfectly predictable that it would function as the pressure was lowered until at a certain point it would stop working, although it would be tough to calculate the exact point.
Of course it needs both gravity and air pressure to operate.
The idea that intelligence is a survival advantage is ludicrous. It's not as if chimpanzees are the number two animal on the planet, or were number one until we appeared. Or whichever other primate you wish to postulate.
I suspect our success with intelligence is that we've managed by inventing language to harness the intelligence to cooperative social living, and that's the advantage. Like ants or bees, or wolves, but more so.
Of course, you'll never catch the usual ranters here wrapping their brains around the concept of cooperation as a positive thing. Blah blah sheeple blah blah.
The energy captured in coal, gas, and oil is the result of many millions of years of sunshine. How, exactly, does one reasonably maintain an expectation that our releasing that in a matter of a couple decades should have no significant effects?
Except that the energy being released by burning all that fossil fuel is trivial.
Google gives me 144000TWh in 2008 world energy consumption. Call it 2x10^17Wh
Solar flux at Earths surface is around 2x10^17W. Geothermal is around 5x10^13W.
Almost 10^5 hours in a year, so Geothermal heating is about 4x10^18Wh/year
The heating from burning all that fossil fuel is small in comparison to the heating due to natural radioactivity in the Earth's crust which, in turn, is negligible in comparison to the energy from the Sun.
It's the CO2 that is the problem. Even though it traps a tiny extra fraction of that incoming solar radiation, a tiny fraction adds up to a lot of energy and it's year in, year out.
Indeed. Denialists often calculate how little energy that is per cc, or per liter of atmosphere. They never continue the logic and figure out how much effect that little energy would have 24/7, given the little mass in that volume of air; or, total the energy over all the volume of the atmosphere and see what a titanic amount of energy we are putting into it.
Those who would advocate AGW need to provide a solid convincing answer to one thing: the temperature of every planet in the solar system has increased, not just Earth's. I think we can agree there are no humans on Venus and Neptune cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels.
Bullshit; there is no evidence supporting the idea that all planets are warming uniformly and at the same relative rate (which would be necessary for this idea). Any climate variations on other planets is perfectly well explained by proximity to the sun and natural environmental fluctuations. The warming of the Earth, on the other hand, is not explained by these factors. Besides, there's no evidence that the current epoch of warming of the Earth has tracked solar output (in fact there's no evidence that the sun's output has varied significantly, on average, in the past few millenia).
But it's curious how people would cling to the data on the climate on other planets - which is tenuous and sparse at best - and ignore the massive amount of evidence we have for Earth's climate, CO2 concentration, and the interlinking of these two.
And yes, ocean acidity is a huge problem and it's caused by CO2. In fact it's one of the main problems that our carbon emissions have caused.
Indeed. in fact, shouldn't the moon be warming then? it's right next door. we can train IR thermometers on it and everything. It's getting much the same sun as we do. shouldn't it be warming? unless there's something in our atmosphere that's important for the warming?
for that matter, we do measure and record solar output. it's not like we have to impute it by observing the temperature of Uranus.
It's like actual primary sources, data, peer reviewed papers, etc. are Kryptonite to rightwingers.
Those who would advocate AGW need to provide a solid convincing answer to one thing: the temperature of every planet in the solar system has increased, not just Earth's..
Please let us know where you heard that., I really would like to know who's saying that. Even the biggest wingnut's haven't gone that far, I'd love to read it.
The poor actually WORK. You know. Cook, clean, build, drill, pour, dig, etc.
“what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first one is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.” -Bertrand Russell
Not implying. There are a lot of willfully ignorant people that prefer their religion's tale of a 10,000 year old universe to cosmology, geology, astrophysics, and biology. but they really should be a tiny minority on par with other mental illnesses. Sadly, this affliction is rampant in the USA. Happily, it is a dwindling number, and perhaps will soon be eradicated.
Everybody does it. Previously, however, I had assumed that the majority stop putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "No no no no!" when they hear something that might crimp their style, after they are two years old. Now, I see I had been optimistic.
The problem is that people aren't questioning "authority" in the form of celebrities with no qualifications at all, and are unreasonably questioning authority, in the form of people who have spent decades training and studying the things they're talking about.
By unreasonably questioning I don't mean skepticism, I mean unshakeable disbelief.
Back to my favorite hobby horse; the difference between "right" and "left" (currently, not always) in cognitive styles. The right has become more than anything a rejection of data-driven, individual decision making, in favor of loyalty to the perceived values of their "side", unquestioning acceptance of the statements of their opinion leaders, instant decision making on the basis of whether something is what they want to hear, fits into their worldview, etc
The result is "questioning authority" meaning that if you don't like Al Gore, then you believe AGW is a hoax, and no amount of evidence will change your mind.
Whereas any shmuck who writes an editorial with some random critique of "liberal" thought is praised uncritically.
I find that, with a modicum of scientific education? orientation? talent? whatever, I can at least dig through the majority of what's put forward as "alternatives to AGW" or "proof that AGW is a lie" or whatever, and find the gaping holes pretty quickly. The remainder of the "literature", to use the term loosely, I can usually use google to find an understandable explanation of what's wrong with it, among all the identically parroted claims of "Blahblah proves AGW a big hoax!" praising it as the denialist flavor of the week.
"Are you confident that the earth is billions of years old?"
"Are you confident that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?"
Version 2 was the version they asked. Frankly, I'd not express too much confidence in that. Just too much precision. Version 1 would have been a much fairer test.
It appears that rightwingers wake up every morning and assume that it's a brand new world. Most of them seem to have forgotten the previous president, let alone having voted for him. Twice.
We should be glad we are a country which does not take the word of "authority" at face value. Surely the best scientists and innovators come from that tradition. If a person does not understand a proof, they should not blindly accept it.
The days when a reasonably well educated person could understand most all of science are long gone. In the 21st century, you need to believe that the scientists are not all in collusion to keep the grant money flowing, at some point.
You might want to start with looking at who actually proposed the big bang theory in the first place, and until you do, shut the fuck up you ignorant twit.
Yes, a Catholic priest. As a general rule, Catholics seem to be significantly more sane than various American protestant sects on several issues.
Now, if the rightwingers would look up who actually proposed global warming and anthropogenic global warming in the first place; hint, not Al Gore.
I dunno, seems like both sides of the argument are deliberately being dumb.
No, you can't find logical explanations of what are put forward as miracles. if they had explanations, they wouldn't be miracles.
And by the same token, you can't find scientific evidence of how your miracles happened. If you find scientific evidence, then God didn't reach down from the heavens and make it happen to show His power.
Science is belief, but based on the preponderance of continuing evidence of an impersonal logical system of predictable repeatable operations. Religion is belief, based on at most sporadic evidence of individual occurrences which stand out from the daily routine operation of the universe, but doesn't require them.
when science gives me antibiotics and cell phones, i believe in it totally.
when it tells me i need to be careful about where I toss my waste products, it's a hoax.
I've found this rule to be easy to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things basic physics should teach us: you can't push on a rope, and you can't pull on a fluid.
The textbook example for this is trees. They can lift a column of aqueous solution way into the air by dint of capillarity, temperature effects, surface tension, and various other effects, which AFAIK still aren't completely understood.
That's pretty close to the point. the water at the apex will cavitate.
Was this ever under any doubt? That's what they taught us in junior high.
The siphon stopped working at 018 atm. It's perfectly predictable that it would function as the pressure was lowered until at a certain point it would stop working, although it would be tough to calculate the exact point. Of course it needs both gravity and air pressure to operate.
We already have. The "1%" (more accurately the .01%) and the rest of us.
The idea that intelligence is a survival advantage is ludicrous. It's not as if chimpanzees are the number two animal on the planet, or were number one until we appeared. Or whichever other primate you wish to postulate. I suspect our success with intelligence is that we've managed by inventing language to harness the intelligence to cooperative social living, and that's the advantage. Like ants or bees, or wolves, but more so. Of course, you'll never catch the usual ranters here wrapping their brains around the concept of cooperation as a positive thing. Blah blah sheeple blah blah.
Kind of like asking, if there are enough children with access to loaded weapons around the house, why haven't we seen a 2 year old rob a bank?
The energy captured in coal, gas, and oil is the result of many millions of years of sunshine. How, exactly, does one reasonably maintain an expectation that our releasing that in a matter of a couple decades should have no significant effects?
Except that the energy being released by burning all that fossil fuel is trivial.
Google gives me 144000TWh in 2008 world energy consumption. Call it 2x10^17Wh
Solar flux at Earths surface is around 2x10^17W. Geothermal is around 5x10^13W. Almost 10^5 hours in a year, so Geothermal heating is about 4x10^18Wh/year
The heating from burning all that fossil fuel is small in comparison to the heating due to natural radioactivity in the Earth's crust which, in turn, is negligible in comparison to the energy from the Sun.
It's the CO2 that is the problem. Even though it traps a tiny extra fraction of that incoming solar radiation, a tiny fraction adds up to a lot of energy and it's year in, year out.
Indeed. Denialists often calculate how little energy that is per cc, or per liter of atmosphere. They never continue the logic and figure out how much effect that little energy would have 24/7, given the little mass in that volume of air; or, total the energy over all the volume of the atmosphere and see what a titanic amount of energy we are putting into it.
Those who would advocate AGW need to provide a solid convincing answer to one thing: the temperature of every planet in the solar system has increased, not just Earth's. I think we can agree there are no humans on Venus and Neptune cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels.
Bullshit; there is no evidence supporting the idea that all planets are warming uniformly and at the same relative rate (which would be necessary for this idea). Any climate variations on other planets is perfectly well explained by proximity to the sun and natural environmental fluctuations. The warming of the Earth, on the other hand, is not explained by these factors. Besides, there's no evidence that the current epoch of warming of the Earth has tracked solar output (in fact there's no evidence that the sun's output has varied significantly, on average, in the past few millenia).
But it's curious how people would cling to the data on the climate on other planets - which is tenuous and sparse at best - and ignore the massive amount of evidence we have for Earth's climate, CO2 concentration, and the interlinking of these two.
And yes, ocean acidity is a huge problem and it's caused by CO2. In fact it's one of the main problems that our carbon emissions have caused.
Indeed. in fact, shouldn't the moon be warming then? it's right next door. we can train IR thermometers on it and everything. It's getting much the same sun as we do. shouldn't it be warming? unless there's something in our atmosphere that's important for the warming? for that matter, we do measure and record solar output. it's not like we have to impute it by observing the temperature of Uranus. It's like actual primary sources, data, peer reviewed papers, etc. are Kryptonite to rightwingers.
Those who would advocate AGW need to provide a solid convincing answer to one thing: the temperature of every planet in the solar system has increased, not just Earth's..
Please let us know where you heard that., I really would like to know who's saying that. Even the biggest wingnut's haven't gone that far, I'd love to read it.
Join "WebEx".
The poor actually WORK. You know. Cook, clean, build, drill, pour, dig, etc.
“what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first one is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid.” -Bertrand Russell
Not implying. There are a lot of willfully ignorant people that prefer their religion's tale of a 10,000 year old universe to cosmology, geology, astrophysics, and biology. but they really should be a tiny minority on par with other mental illnesses. Sadly, this affliction is rampant in the USA. Happily, it is a dwindling number, and perhaps will soon be eradicated.
Everybody does it. Previously, however, I had assumed that the majority stop putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "No no no no!" when they hear something that might crimp their style, after they are two years old. Now, I see I had been optimistic.
The problem is that people aren't questioning "authority" in the form of celebrities with no qualifications at all, and are unreasonably questioning authority, in the form of people who have spent decades training and studying the things they're talking about.
By unreasonably questioning I don't mean skepticism, I mean unshakeable disbelief.
Back to my favorite hobby horse; the difference between "right" and "left" (currently, not always) in cognitive styles. The right has become more than anything a rejection of data-driven, individual decision making, in favor of loyalty to the perceived values of their "side", unquestioning acceptance of the statements of their opinion leaders, instant decision making on the basis of whether something is what they want to hear, fits into their worldview, etc The result is "questioning authority" meaning that if you don't like Al Gore, then you believe AGW is a hoax, and no amount of evidence will change your mind. Whereas any shmuck who writes an editorial with some random critique of "liberal" thought is praised uncritically.
I find that, with a modicum of scientific education? orientation? talent? whatever, I can at least dig through the majority of what's put forward as "alternatives to AGW" or "proof that AGW is a lie" or whatever, and find the gaping holes pretty quickly. The remainder of the "literature", to use the term loosely, I can usually use google to find an understandable explanation of what's wrong with it, among all the identically parroted claims of "Blahblah proves AGW a big hoax!" praising it as the denialist flavor of the week.
Compare the two questions:
"Are you confident that the earth is billions of years old?"
"Are you confident that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?"
Version 2 was the version they asked. Frankly, I'd not express too much confidence in that. Just too much precision. Version 1 would have been a much fairer test.
It appears that rightwingers wake up every morning and assume that it's a brand new world. Most of them seem to have forgotten the previous president, let alone having voted for him. Twice.
We should be glad we are a country which does not take the word of "authority" at face value. Surely the best scientists and innovators come from that tradition. If a person does not understand a proof, they should not blindly accept it.
The days when a reasonably well educated person could understand most all of science are long gone. In the 21st century, you need to believe that the scientists are not all in collusion to keep the grant money flowing, at some point.
Mainly, it's the model that best fits all the oddball facts we have, with the fewest left hanging out there unexplained.
You might want to start with looking at who actually proposed the big bang theory in the first place, and until you do, shut the fuck up you ignorant twit.
Yes, a Catholic priest. As a general rule, Catholics seem to be significantly more sane than various American protestant sects on several issues.
Now, if the rightwingers would look up who actually proposed global warming and anthropogenic global warming in the first place; hint, not Al Gore.
I dunno, seems like both sides of the argument are deliberately being dumb. No, you can't find logical explanations of what are put forward as miracles. if they had explanations, they wouldn't be miracles. And by the same token, you can't find scientific evidence of how your miracles happened. If you find scientific evidence, then God didn't reach down from the heavens and make it happen to show His power. Science is belief, but based on the preponderance of continuing evidence of an impersonal logical system of predictable repeatable operations. Religion is belief, based on at most sporadic evidence of individual occurrences which stand out from the daily routine operation of the universe, but doesn't require them.
when science gives me antibiotics and cell phones, i believe in it totally. when it tells me i need to be careful about where I toss my waste products, it's a hoax. I've found this rule to be easy to follow.
You mean the 10 Commandments kind?
Thou shalt not take thyself so seriously that you think you have to save everything.
Valium.
Wasp air pistol..
But the pot which is NOT stirred is the one that will build up layers of floating junk on top, earthstyle.
Good point. Tidal forces pull the crust up and down. On the other hand, this might be construed as heating it, which would be anti-tectonic.