It could also be a good source of propellant for an unmanned sample return mission. If the drilling/refining component of this mission proved to be reliable enough for the unmanned return trip, and was able to continue producing fuel after the return capsule had left, it could conceivably then be used to provide fuel for a manned return trip. (At least for the return-to-martian-orbit part).
But unless it had a track record, I'd be wary of risking my life on the assumption that fuel could be extracted.
Gravity at the surface - proportional with M/R^2. Mass - proportional with R^3 => Keep density constant and gravity at the surface is proportional with R.
All true, but my calculation was based on its mass being 2.4 times that of the Earth, not its radius. Surface gravity will be proportional to the cube root of its mass.
If it had a density equal to that of Earth's, it'd have a surface gravity only 1/3 higher than Earth's, by my calculations. We could probably tolerate that without needing thunder thighs. Of course if its atmosphere is comparible to Earth's, then the greenhouse effect would presumably warm the surface to ~20C higher than you'd expect from its orbit alone, as happens with Earth. And an average surface temperature of over 40C sounds a bit sweaty... though I imagine the poles could be a bit more tolerable.
Well, every manufactured thing has a limited lifespan... but I'd guess that they can be recycled - and that it is probably economically feasible to do so (or that it will be in 30 years or whenever the current generation start to expire)
It might be, but the client-side validation specifically stopped you from entering a value of 255 in any of the boxes for the IP address, and the server didn't.
It was free with our ISP, so don't judge me. (We're with TalkTalk in the UK... ok, do judge me.)
It used client-side validation only to determine whether or not I was entering a valid port to forward to. By copying the admin page to my local machine and updating the target, I was able to remove the validation and set up my port forward to.255... I managed to resist the urge of setting up a forward to something actually invalid, in case the router completely died on me.
If the guys that made my router are spies... they're not very good.
Having read the patent... my understanding is that it has to be done using an URL, specifically. Which is still stupidly broad, but your paper maps should be fine.
If you can't even imagine quantifying whether or not things are better or worse for humanity, how do you expect us to believe you when you say that an increase in global average temperature is going to be worse for humanity?
And you can, presumably? In an objective manner? Will the same things be "better" for a humanity of 500k hunter gatherers as for a global civilization of 7 billion? I don't say that things are going to be worse for "humanity" - but I do suspect that the shortage of food, fuel and arable land we're plunging into is going to be very bad for quite a lot of people.
On my first point, I plain can't be bothered looking up a citation. On my second, I state that I'm making a presumption. I expect that we'd agree that there are many factors affecting what global population our infrastructure can support, but I'd make a reasonably educated guess that the ratio of biodiversity between tundra and rainforest/desert (whatever that means) won't be one of the more significant factors in that list.
The observed data I refer to are instances of mass coral bleaching.
Absolutely, refutable hypotheses are the order of the day. But a refutation only counts if it's valid. And the David Middleton article you link to would appear to have only been cursorily proof-read, let alone thoroughly verified. But are its various points valid? Scientists normally turn to their peers, fellow experts in their field. Has this guy done so?
I'm not going to bother providing you with citations, though I seem to recall New Scientist doing a special report on potential benefits of climate change. Haven't read it in a few years, but you can go look that up if you want, I'm sure it has several citations.
How would you even begin to quantify any of these proposed observations - or for that matter, apply them to the modern world? Even if you demonstrated a net benefit to a world of half a million hunter-gatherers, I very much doubt you could directly apply that to a globalized world of 7 billion. Same with the medieval warm period, but as that's generally considered a localized phenomenon anyway, it doesn't really count.
As for comparing tundra with rainforest, shouldn't you be comparing it with desert? Regardless, given that the vast majority of land-based human food production is done between these extremes, it's presumably the extent of temperate areas suitable for farming that's the most important factor in such calcuations.
1) Oceans are not acidic, so a drop in pH is not "increasing acidity", it's "less alkalinity".
Presumably you'd also telling me off for saying that something got colder instead of getting less hot? I'm no chemist, but I'm convinced that your pedantry backfired here. "Decreasing alkalinity" is synonymous with "increasing acidity!"
That page... well, where to start? The first sentence is a mouthful, that's for sure. It almost sounds like it's suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 was the main driver of climate change in the past, but that cosmic rays and the sun have taken over recently! It also uses an apostrophe to pluralise a number: 1700s. My inner pedant really hates that one!
The author accuses multiple peer reviewed papers of blatantly obvious cherry picking, yet picks only specific studies to cite, offering no independent verification of his own conclusions. He claims that there is no evidence that increased ocean acidification and temperature can affect coral, yet offers no explanation as to the reef deaths that have been observed, and credibly attributed to these causes. He suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 may not affect ocean acidity, seemingly ignoring the massive interactions between ocean and atmosphere, and the very concept of carbonic acid.
Seems like blatant denialism of observed data, to me.
So shouldn't we do something to stop the changes we can stop?
Why? What if human caused changed might end up being very good for us? What if *without* human caused change, we would face doomsday and disaster?
I'm pretty sure I recall studies suggesting that we're better off keeping things temperate. Global climate change in either direction will presumably keep a roughly constant (but moving) surface area of the world "temperate" (until that region extends to either the poles or the equator, at which point it starts shrinking), any gains in food production in e.g. sibera will be offset by increased desertification elsewhere. And I think most everyone agrees that a global increase in ocean acidity is bad news for fish (and the people that eat them) everywhere... and that increased atmospheric CO2 increases ocean acidity.
Rather than relying on uninformed speculation and "what ifs"... I'd much rather we tried applying science.
Apart from the latter "w" handsets, the Treo series ran PalmOS, and from the 600 onwards, had a form factor very similar to modern blackberry devices. I had several, and felt that the OS was very good for its time. It just stagnated, and by the time the 680 came out (identical to 650, except for internal antenna and lower battery capacity), it became clear that PalmOS wasn't able to keep up with... anyone else.
I'm sure there's been plenty "one night floats" but given the potential for complications, I suspect most people would be pretty damn careful to avoid being producing the first "spaceborne" baby. Doubtless there'd be a lot of scientific interest on embryonic development.
Climate science and the recommendations derived thereof have always displayed the height of human arrogance. We think we can model a dynamic system as complex as the earth and reduce global mean temperature to one key variable.
Uh... what? I thought most people would have realised that such "global averages" are produced for the purposes of media sound bites only, right? These models do tend to give slightly more output than just a single number.
It is absurd on its face. But most of the public is scientifically illiterate to the point that they don't really understand that to model the Earth you'd need a computer larger than the earth itself.
What?? By the same logic, you'd need a computer bigger than a galaxy to model galaxy collisions, and a computer bigger than the visible universe to model the history of the universe. I had to do a golf simulation once as an undergrad, and I didn't need a computer bigger than a golf course! Here's a hint: in all of these scenarios, every atom isn't modelled discretely. And that's ok!
Slashdot Mirror
It could also be a good source of propellant for an unmanned sample return mission. If the drilling/refining component of this mission proved to be reliable enough for the unmanned return trip, and was able to continue producing fuel after the return capsule had left, it could conceivably then be used to provide fuel for a manned return trip. (At least for the return-to-martian-orbit part).
But unless it had a track record, I'd be wary of risking my life on the assumption that fuel could be extracted.
TFS
Kepler-22b is 2.4 times the radius of Earth ...
D'oh! Can't imagine that being much of an "Earth twin" then, as being reported elsewhere.
Gravity at the surface - proportional with M/R^2. Mass - proportional with R^3 => Keep density constant and gravity at the surface is proportional with R.
All true, but my calculation was based on its mass being 2.4 times that of the Earth, not its radius. Surface gravity will be proportional to the cube root of its mass.
If it had a density equal to that of Earth's, it'd have a surface gravity only 1/3 higher than Earth's, by my calculations. We could probably tolerate that without needing thunder thighs. Of course if its atmosphere is comparible to Earth's, then the greenhouse effect would presumably warm the surface to ~20C higher than you'd expect from its orbit alone, as happens with Earth. And an average surface temperature of over 40C sounds a bit sweaty ... though I imagine the poles could be a bit more tolerable.
Well, every manufactured thing has a limited lifespan ... but I'd guess that they can be recycled - and that it is probably economically feasible to do so (or that it will be in 30 years or whenever the current generation start to expire)
This
The argument being made is that expensive and potentially hazardous materials are required to make wind turbines and solar panels.
It might be, but the client-side validation specifically stopped you from entering a value of 255 in any of the boxes for the IP address, and the server didn't.
It was free with our ISP, so don't judge me. (We're with TalkTalk in the UK ... ok, do judge me.)
It used client-side validation only to determine whether or not I was entering a valid port to forward to. By copying the admin page to my local machine and updating the target, I was able to remove the validation and set up my port forward to .255 ... I managed to resist the urge of setting up a forward to something actually invalid, in case the router completely died on me.
If the guys that made my router are spies ... they're not very good.
Never mind that, any mention of "spacetime fabric" screams "Star Trek" - to physicists, there's just "spacetime"
Having read the patent ... my understanding is that it has to be done using an URL, specifically. Which is still stupidly broad, but your paper maps should be fine.
If you can't even imagine quantifying whether or not things are better or worse for humanity, how do you expect us to believe you when you say that an increase in global average temperature is going to be worse for humanity?
And you can, presumably? In an objective manner? Will the same things be "better" for a humanity of 500k hunter gatherers as for a global civilization of 7 billion? I don't say that things are going to be worse for "humanity" - but I do suspect that the shortage of food, fuel and arable land we're plunging into is going to be very bad for quite a lot of people.
On my first point, I plain can't be bothered looking up a citation. On my second, I state that I'm making a presumption. I expect that we'd agree that there are many factors affecting what global population our infrastructure can support, but I'd make a reasonably educated guess that the ratio of biodiversity between tundra and rainforest/desert (whatever that means) won't be one of the more significant factors in that list.
The observed data I refer to are instances of mass coral bleaching.
Absolutely, refutable hypotheses are the order of the day. But a refutation only counts if it's valid. And the David Middleton article you link to would appear to have only been cursorily proof-read, let alone thoroughly verified. But are its various points valid? Scientists normally turn to their peers, fellow experts in their field. Has this guy done so?
I'm not going to bother providing you with citations, though I seem to recall New Scientist doing a special report on potential benefits of climate change. Haven't read it in a few years, but you can go look that up if you want, I'm sure it has several citations.
How would you even begin to quantify any of these proposed observations - or for that matter, apply them to the modern world? Even if you demonstrated a net benefit to a world of half a million hunter-gatherers, I very much doubt you could directly apply that to a globalized world of 7 billion. Same with the medieval warm period, but as that's generally considered a localized phenomenon anyway, it doesn't really count.
As for comparing tundra with rainforest, shouldn't you be comparing it with desert? Regardless, given that the vast majority of land-based human food production is done between these extremes, it's presumably the extent of temperate areas suitable for farming that's the most important factor in such calcuations.
1) Oceans are not acidic, so a drop in pH is not "increasing acidity", it's "less alkalinity".
Presumably you'd also telling me off for saying that something got colder instead of getting less hot? I'm no chemist, but I'm convinced that your pedantry backfired here. "Decreasing alkalinity" is synonymous with "increasing acidity!"
2) The historical record doesn't support any sort of assertion that high CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the oceans to become acidic: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/
That page ... well, where to start? The first sentence is a mouthful, that's for sure. It almost sounds like it's suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 was the main driver of climate change in the past, but that cosmic rays and the sun have taken over recently! It also uses an apostrophe to pluralise a number: 1700s. My inner pedant really hates that one!
The author accuses multiple peer reviewed papers of blatantly obvious cherry picking, yet picks only specific studies to cite, offering no independent verification of his own conclusions. He claims that there is no evidence that increased ocean acidification and temperature can affect coral, yet offers no explanation as to the reef deaths that have been observed, and credibly attributed to these causes. He suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 may not affect ocean acidity, seemingly ignoring the massive interactions between ocean and atmosphere, and the very concept of carbonic acid.
Seems like blatant denialism of observed data, to me.
Why? What if human caused changed might end up being very good for us? What if *without* human caused change, we would face doomsday and disaster?
I'm pretty sure I recall studies suggesting that we're better off keeping things temperate. Global climate change in either direction will presumably keep a roughly constant (but moving) surface area of the world "temperate" (until that region extends to either the poles or the equator, at which point it starts shrinking), any gains in food production in e.g. sibera will be offset by increased desertification elsewhere. And I think most everyone agrees that a global increase in ocean acidity is bad news for fish (and the people that eat them) everywhere... and that increased atmospheric CO2 increases ocean acidity.
Rather than relying on uninformed speculation and "what ifs" ... I'd much rather we tried applying science.
and suddenly humans become reasonable.
You do realise this is humans we're talking about? We're never going to be reasonable!
and help dispel the sensationalism in these articles.
And replace it with new, more-persistant sensationalism!
Apart from the latter "w" handsets, the Treo series ran PalmOS, and from the 600 onwards, had a form factor very similar to modern blackberry devices. I had several, and felt that the OS was very good for its time. It just stagnated, and by the time the 680 came out (identical to 650, except for internal antenna and lower battery capacity), it became clear that PalmOS wasn't able to keep up with ... anyone else.
We would still have phones with thousand of buttons and switches if apple would not have shown an other way.
Guess you never used a Palm Pilot?
Maybe I should file patents on slide-to-scroll? How about type-to-send-SMS or type-to-send-email? Surely those are equally patent-worthy?
I'm sure there's been plenty "one night floats" but given the potential for complications, I suspect most people would be pretty damn careful to avoid being producing the first "spaceborne" baby. Doubtless there'd be a lot of scientific interest on embryonic development.
And, if men are sent, they'll probably want women to be sent. And, if women are sent, you can expect some little people soon enough.
Yeah the ISS is swarming with babies now...
Looks good, but it just brought up the following gamesradar link from March as if it were new! :-)
http://www.gamesradar.com/dragon-age-and-yakuza-delayed-disaster-report-4-canceled-in-reaction-to-quake/
Couple of kinks still in there, perhaps.
So would you say that paleoclimatologists also ignore the past climate? Because if so, that would seem to be quite the misnomer.
Climate science and the recommendations derived thereof have always displayed the height of human arrogance. We think we can model a dynamic system as complex as the earth and reduce global mean temperature to one key variable.
Uh ... what? I thought most people would have realised that such "global averages" are produced for the purposes of media sound bites only, right? These models do tend to give slightly more output than just a single number.
It is absurd on its face. But most of the public is scientifically illiterate to the point that they don't really understand that to model the Earth you'd need a computer larger than the earth itself.
What?? By the same logic, you'd need a computer bigger than a galaxy to model galaxy collisions, and a computer bigger than the visible universe to model the history of the universe. I had to do a golf simulation once as an undergrad, and I didn't need a computer bigger than a golf course! Here's a hint: in all of these scenarios, every atom isn't modelled discretely. And that's ok!
To paraphrase:
It might not be true, so don't worry?
I consider the first part misrepresentative to say the least, but even given that, how is the second part a logical conclusion?