There's a big ole difference between denying a past event with eyewitnesses and believing the future will turn out a certain way because most climate scientists believe it will turn out that way. Its also entirely possible to be skeptical about AGW if you are not comfortable with temperature proxies being grafted onto measurements because the proxies didn't match actual temperatures after 1960 or if you insist that a prediction model is able to predict a future it was not trained on. For alot of people, providing the most accurate reading available at any given time and training the model on history and looking at the predictions are good enough. And even if you're not skeptical on the predictions, you can be skeptical that proposed solutions are worth it.
To set cement used on my teeth, its cheaper than alternatives like wood or metal, depends on the brake pad but its ultimately something with a high friction coefficient. You don't have to be a specialist to have a reasonable level of understanding about the magic in things, just be reasonably smart and be able to learn and reason.
I don't know if you understood what I meant. In plainer english: Anyone can preform a simple experiment or use a simple (E=hv) equation and figure out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No one can preform an experiment to prove AGW, and so we've got to rely on models.
well there's a big difference between not surviving several hundred years of history and being purposely deleted after a FOIA request. AGW is not a fundamental explanation of the workings of the universe, its the conjecture of the result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and trying to anticipate the results. The question isn't whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's scientific fact that has underpinings that can be readily tested experimentally. We know that CO2 absorbs IR light, it can be tested. AGW is an outgrowth of the effect that has to be modelled and inferred from past data, which isn't just a graph of past temperature and CO2 levels. One point of contention in the e-mails is that prior to ~1900 temperature is inferred from tree ring growth, until 1960 the tree rings and the temperature record matched, after 1960 the tree rings and temperature record began to diverge, in the graphs, the pre-1960 tree ring inferred record was grafted onto the post-1960 temperature record, and there are differing views on why there is a divergence. (pollution, non-linear temperature/growth relation are cited as possibilities). But at the end of the day, there's no way to do a controlled experiment, and they the models they have had in the past that suggest AGW have not predicted the present conditions, so though the best we can ever hope for is a model that cannot be tested fast enough in order to give us time to act on its conclusions. Its not as cut and dry as gravity, its how an extremely complicated, non-linear feedback system(the models do not cover this, scientists say its a secondary effect) whose operation varies with time (aka a 1ppm increase in CO2 has a different impact depending on not just the current state, but past states). That's why Ph.D's work on these things, you're trying to draw a conclusion from a situation where normal experiment cannot apply.
I find it somewhat arrogant that to say that just because someone does not have the particular scientific knowledge to do the work themselves means that they are beneath contempt and should be ignored. As an engineer who does a lot of initial research on technologies, convincing the person who will eventually put money behind your work is ultimately as important as the results you get. The person you are trying to convince are never as well versed in the subject as you, but your job is to convince them that your results are valid and deserve the level of trust that you have for them. In my mind anyone who can't or won't explain what they are doing to a layman usually doesn't know what they are doing in the first place.
being able to eliminate possible sources of error in the conclusion to just the data gathering techniques would definitely make the conclusions easier to swallow for people who didn't already want to implement the proposed solutions. Also, going from raw data to graph isn't something you need a climate scientist for, anyone with a background in statistics and programming should be able to understand it and draw the same conclusions.
Nice job using the straw man there, just because someone thinks that moving forward quickly to reverse AGW at great cost without the data behind the graphs being available is a bad idea, doesn't mean they think that total irresponsibility is without consequence.
I just finished up undergraduate classes as an electrical engineer, and I would say the majority of people in my department used Adderall to help them study longer. Those people all ended up with better GPA's for it. It's almost the same question with sports and steroids, if I had used that kind of drug to increase my studying capacity, I probably could have gotten enough of an extra boost to enter "free Ph.D." territory.
Suppose you had a massive inductor, that was say 10H, in order to make a 60Hz filter you would need like a 100 ohm resistor, which in order to make to survive the huge currents/voltages while maintaining low impedance would need to be a big block of iron
C02 gets pulled out of the air to make the plants you ferment to make booze, and the fermenting process lets some of this go, when you digest it the carbon becomes part of you or respirated out. Eventually all of the carbon goes back, its a cycle.
It's probably the old hardware, I've got a laptop that was crappy four years ago, with Ubuntu 8.10 and xfce and I run into basically identical problems.
I took baby quantum mechanics a year ago (an optional 3rd semester of intro physics), and the whole predestination thing was thrown out the window to me as soon as soon as there was a probability distribution of where the particle was at any given time. My thought philosophically is that the sum of tiny deviations from the mean made it so that I could not just take an inventory of all the particles in the universe, write a program to describe their governing laws, and then the output would be every moment of of the future. I much prefer a universe of surprises.
From what I've been hearing, Windows 7 is pretty much Vista with alot of the bloat turned off. Having done that myself in my Vista install, even with all the fancy graphics turned on, I've had a good experience. I hope everyone else gets the same in Windows 7 and gets to love the fancy 'start search' bar as much as I have.
If you don't like the outcome of a straight up or down referendum, challenge it in court, great precedent there. On the other hand, if something is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people agree with a wrong view, they are still wrong. It is interesting to think what would have happened if the black turnout hadn't been so extraordinary thanks to Obama, I seem to remember exit polls saying that most african american voters voted against gay marriage. That being said, I'm all for gay marriage, do what makes you happy, it ain't hurting anyone.
There was a streaming video of a NASA panel talking to the media, and the thing here is that they have been able to see local concentrations. The ESA mission basically looked at the atmosphere on a full couple of orbits and integrated the results to be able to detect that somewhere there was methane. Now we have some concentrated areas, coincidentally where we think there might have been water...
Reaper is $13.325 million and carries 3,750lbs of payload. F35 is $83 million and carries 15,000lbs of payload, thats what wikipedia says. Reaper carries more load per dollar, but is much slower, carries less, flys lower, and doesn't have a person taking a ride.
On friday's the phone stops ringing, and all of a sudden everyone starts being able to work without interruption. For people who don't get jumpy on Fridays for the impending weekend, it really improves productivity
Its cool to get to see what everyone's doing, I'm a senior electrical engineering student, and I'm working on a sonar project where we are using phased-array radar techniques on ultrasound to do sensing. We recently had to give 1/2 way presentations (full-year project), and its amazing what we're able to do when we get to finally unleash three long years worth of learning. Glad to see so many people are getting their hard work viewed by the public. Hope it helps land them a job, or some VC money to start a business.
Well, Bush's line is only the "we gotta get to the moon then mars on the cheap". Griffin is using an idea that's been floating around for about 15 years on his Mars plan, and the Moon plan is just bigger, better Apollo. Griffin has also been a supporter of what Constellation basically is since 1995 (according to Zubrick, The Case for Mars), well before he was even aware there was a Bush line to tow. Most likely, he wants Constellation to happen because the concept is something he feels ownership towards, and doesn't want Obama to get rid of it and divert the money to the black hole known as the education budget.
1000 nm light has a frequency of 3e15 Hz, or 3000 THz. The real thing with optics is to be able to do the processing on light signals instead of electron signals, even in this case the transistors would run at tens to hundreds of GHz. The switching frequency they are talking about here is basically how small they have gotten the internal resistances and capacitances so that the time constant is very very very short. Running one transistor at that kind of speed is one thing, running one hundred million is something else.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big ole difference between denying a past event with eyewitnesses and believing the future will turn out a certain way because most climate scientists believe it will turn out that way. Its also entirely possible to be skeptical about AGW if you are not comfortable with temperature proxies being grafted onto measurements because the proxies didn't match actual temperatures after 1960 or if you insist that a prediction model is able to predict a future it was not trained on. For alot of people, providing the most accurate reading available at any given time and training the model on history and looking at the predictions are good enough. And even if you're not skeptical on the predictions, you can be skeptical that proposed solutions are worth it.
To set cement used on my teeth, its cheaper than alternatives like wood or metal, depends on the brake pad but its ultimately something with a high friction coefficient. You don't have to be a specialist to have a reasonable level of understanding about the magic in things, just be reasonably smart and be able to learn and reason.
I don't know if you understood what I meant. In plainer english: Anyone can preform a simple experiment or use a simple (E=hv) equation and figure out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No one can preform an experiment to prove AGW, and so we've got to rely on models.
well there's a big difference between not surviving several hundred years of history and being purposely deleted after a FOIA request. AGW is not a fundamental explanation of the workings of the universe, its the conjecture of the result of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and trying to anticipate the results. The question isn't whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's scientific fact that has underpinings that can be readily tested experimentally. We know that CO2 absorbs IR light, it can be tested. AGW is an outgrowth of the effect that has to be modelled and inferred from past data, which isn't just a graph of past temperature and CO2 levels. One point of contention in the e-mails is that prior to ~1900 temperature is inferred from tree ring growth, until 1960 the tree rings and the temperature record matched, after 1960 the tree rings and temperature record began to diverge, in the graphs, the pre-1960 tree ring inferred record was grafted onto the post-1960 temperature record, and there are differing views on why there is a divergence. (pollution, non-linear temperature/growth relation are cited as possibilities). But at the end of the day, there's no way to do a controlled experiment, and they the models they have had in the past that suggest AGW have not predicted the present conditions, so though the best we can ever hope for is a model that cannot be tested fast enough in order to give us time to act on its conclusions. Its not as cut and dry as gravity, its how an extremely complicated, non-linear feedback system(the models do not cover this, scientists say its a secondary effect) whose operation varies with time (aka a 1ppm increase in CO2 has a different impact depending on not just the current state, but past states). That's why Ph.D's work on these things, you're trying to draw a conclusion from a situation where normal experiment cannot apply.
I find it somewhat arrogant that to say that just because someone does not have the particular scientific knowledge to do the work themselves means that they are beneath contempt and should be ignored. As an engineer who does a lot of initial research on technologies, convincing the person who will eventually put money behind your work is ultimately as important as the results you get. The person you are trying to convince are never as well versed in the subject as you, but your job is to convince them that your results are valid and deserve the level of trust that you have for them. In my mind anyone who can't or won't explain what they are doing to a layman usually doesn't know what they are doing in the first place.
being able to eliminate possible sources of error in the conclusion to just the data gathering techniques would definitely make the conclusions easier to swallow for people who didn't already want to implement the proposed solutions. Also, going from raw data to graph isn't something you need a climate scientist for, anyone with a background in statistics and programming should be able to understand it and draw the same conclusions.
Nice job using the straw man there, just because someone thinks that moving forward quickly to reverse AGW at great cost without the data behind the graphs being available is a bad idea, doesn't mean they think that total irresponsibility is without consequence.
I wish that getting a 65% on a test in college would have qualified as "rather well", thought I guess electronics manufacturers get graded on a curve
I just finished up undergraduate classes as an electrical engineer, and I would say the majority of people in my department used Adderall to help them study longer. Those people all ended up with better GPA's for it. It's almost the same question with sports and steroids, if I had used that kind of drug to increase my studying capacity, I probably could have gotten enough of an extra boost to enter "free Ph.D." territory.
Suppose you had a massive inductor, that was say 10H, in order to make a 60Hz filter you would need like a 100 ohm resistor, which in order to make to survive the huge currents/voltages while maintaining low impedance would need to be a big block of iron
there ain't no such thing as a free lunch
Of course if this was a SPACEX launch we'd all be calling this a failure.
C02 gets pulled out of the air to make the plants you ferment to make booze, and the fermenting process lets some of this go, when you digest it the carbon becomes part of you or respirated out. Eventually all of the carbon goes back, its a cycle.
It's probably the old hardware, I've got a laptop that was crappy four years ago, with Ubuntu 8.10 and xfce and I run into basically identical problems.
I took baby quantum mechanics a year ago (an optional 3rd semester of intro physics), and the whole predestination thing was thrown out the window to me as soon as soon as there was a probability distribution of where the particle was at any given time. My thought philosophically is that the sum of tiny deviations from the mean made it so that I could not just take an inventory of all the particles in the universe, write a program to describe their governing laws, and then the output would be every moment of of the future. I much prefer a universe of surprises.
Darwin might be perfectly happy, let genes be a form of meme expression, as the meme evolves, so do the genes.
From what I've been hearing, Windows 7 is pretty much Vista with alot of the bloat turned off. Having done that myself in my Vista install, even with all the fancy graphics turned on, I've had a good experience. I hope everyone else gets the same in Windows 7 and gets to love the fancy 'start search' bar as much as I have.
If you don't like the outcome of a straight up or down referendum, challenge it in court, great precedent there. On the other hand, if something is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people agree with a wrong view, they are still wrong. It is interesting to think what would have happened if the black turnout hadn't been so extraordinary thanks to Obama, I seem to remember exit polls saying that most african american voters voted against gay marriage. That being said, I'm all for gay marriage, do what makes you happy, it ain't hurting anyone.
There was a streaming video of a NASA panel talking to the media, and the thing here is that they have been able to see local concentrations. The ESA mission basically looked at the atmosphere on a full couple of orbits and integrated the results to be able to detect that somewhere there was methane. Now we have some concentrated areas, coincidentally where we think there might have been water...
Reaper is $13.325 million and carries 3,750lbs of payload. F35 is $83 million and carries 15,000lbs of payload, thats what wikipedia says. Reaper carries more load per dollar, but is much slower, carries less, flys lower, and doesn't have a person taking a ride.
On friday's the phone stops ringing, and all of a sudden everyone starts being able to work without interruption. For people who don't get jumpy on Fridays for the impending weekend, it really improves productivity
Its cool to get to see what everyone's doing, I'm a senior electrical engineering student, and I'm working on a sonar project where we are using phased-array radar techniques on ultrasound to do sensing. We recently had to give 1/2 way presentations (full-year project), and its amazing what we're able to do when we get to finally unleash three long years worth of learning. Glad to see so many people are getting their hard work viewed by the public. Hope it helps land them a job, or some VC money to start a business.
Well, Bush's line is only the "we gotta get to the moon then mars on the cheap". Griffin is using an idea that's been floating around for about 15 years on his Mars plan, and the Moon plan is just bigger, better Apollo. Griffin has also been a supporter of what Constellation basically is since 1995 (according to Zubrick, The Case for Mars), well before he was even aware there was a Bush line to tow. Most likely, he wants Constellation to happen because the concept is something he feels ownership towards, and doesn't want Obama to get rid of it and divert the money to the black hole known as the education budget.
Well I'm an idiot, must be too many finals, its 3e14 Hz = 300 THz,for a 1000nm photon, I hope.
1000 nm light has a frequency of 3e15 Hz, or 3000 THz. The real thing with optics is to be able to do the processing on light signals instead of electron signals, even in this case the transistors would run at tens to hundreds of GHz. The switching frequency they are talking about here is basically how small they have gotten the internal resistances and capacitances so that the time constant is very very very short. Running one transistor at that kind of speed is one thing, running one hundred million is something else.