As one of those researchers seeking that more complete understanding, I can tell you that we're finding out that things are a whole lot more complex than expected. We're just discovering the physical processes that force some of the vital parts of the hurricane vortex. Rainbands are still a topic of active research and things like concentric (secondary) eyewalls are just beginning to have the spotlights turned on them. (Interestingly, there was a lull in hurricane research from about 1985 to 1995 (coincident with the tail end of the quiet Atlantic period). The field has exploded in popularity in the last ten years, though, thanks to some terrific new data sources and technological advances (computing, instrumentation like radar, satellite).)
Truthfully, and this is my humble informed opinion... controllable weather modification is still several decades away, at best. And that sort of stuff will be individual thunderstorm modification. I don't think the technology to even produce a significant, predictable change to something as powerful as the hurricane vortex is here yet.
It's definitely interesting stuff to think about, though.
One wonders if this is similar to what is occasionally seen in hurricanes: polygonal eyes. (If interested, do a Google search on "polygonal eyewalls" and get a pretty nice synopsis of the literature on the topic.) It isn't terribly out of the range of possibility that simple theories like these may be enough to explain a lot of this phenomenon. And, yes, polygonal eyewalls in real hurricanes can be very persistent, if the vortex itself doesn't change much and proper balances are maintained. On a planet like Saturn, I would imagine that things don't change too much even from year to year, so the whole pattern could persist for decades if unperturbed.
Still one of my all-time favorite spots to stop on a storm-chase day where you need to waste an hour or two! After all, it's not like you have all that much to really/do/ out in that particular middle-of-nowhere.
-Jellisky
Re:Instant msg-ing messes with grammar? As if! lol
on
It's OK to keep AIMing
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but that is where you are quite wrong, since even within the lol-family of iChars, there are subtle differences between the amount and force of laughter implied by the lol-family member being used.
A simple "l" is a short chuckle. Adding the exclamation point, "l!", gives the chuckle a short punctuality, more like a chortle. Capitalizing it adds volume, so that "L!" is a loud chortle.
"lol" is a soft laugh. "lol!" is a short, soft laugh. "LOL!" is a short, loud laugh.
Moving up in the lol-family, we have "rofl", then "lmao", and "rotflmao", to which the same rules with "!" and capitalization apply. Further gradiations within the lol-family exist within small groups.
In addendum, I may add that a lot of the holes are typically significant issues with the data sources themselves. A non-trivial amount of the data that is used in various parts of climate research (and other atmospheric disciplines) is, well, not very good for the purpose that it is being used in. Data that is only good to +/- 10 units is being used to show trends of +/- 1 or 2 units over the entire timeline, for example. And little of that error problem is being addressed by the authors of the work... for various reasons. But, it's often the best data they have to work with.
There IS some quality data out there, but a lot of it just is not that great. And much of the really great data hasn't been accumulated long enough to really show long-term trends, since it has only been collected in the last 10-20 years. A lot of the issues in the field of climate are just being brought up and handled. That's why I said that it's an exciting time to be watching this field closely. Climatologists are just beginning to get some clout and truly innovative and solid ideas in the last couple decades. It's a field that is maturing literally in front of our eyes. In about a decade or two, we should have a lot more understanding as to how the climate system is working. And a lot of that will just come from the better data that will have some time to accumulate. And from some incredible ideas and great minds.
Read up on many science history books... you'll see the parallel sort of issues between the growth of current climate change science and other sciences as they began to mature. This is a rough, rough period with a lot of conflicting ideas, philosophies, and beliefs. But, it's exciting to watch and be a part of! Eventually, we'll understand what's happening better. Until then, enjoy the ride! I know I am.:-D
A number of these holes HAVE been poked and published. But, it's never enough to just poke the holes... you have to do something "new and interesting". They get discussed and poked and plugged... just not necessarily by me.;) I have my own/other/ problems to work on.
But, the holes are being worked on. They get brought up in the parts of science a lot of people don't get to hear about: the colloqium discussions, the interpersonal meetings, conferences. Like I said, cooler heads will prevail in the end.
There is something that he points out (in a roundabout way) that needs to be said: There is a lot of bad science going on in this debate. Both sides.
Now, granted, I'm a lowly Ph.D. student in Atmospheric Sciences studying hurricanes... what would I know about this, right? (Yes, that's slightly sarcastic.)
"Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now. (I speak mainly for atmospheric science articles in those journals. Other articles may be fine... I don't know.)
The real science happens in the less-public journals. And, believe it or not, the actual science always leads to more questions than answers. There are details that aren't covered in science news coverage that are vital to making valid conclusions in these issues. But, the nature of the "publish-or-perish" funding makes careful science difficult to do.
So, we're left with more questions than answers. Look at Dr. Denning's carbon cycle findings ( http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/globalcarboncy cle.html ) as a prime example of what happens when we begin looking more closely at these problems. Many scientists are tossing out potential hypotheses in a science that is very difficult to easily test these hypotheses properly. There's a rush to put out results of any type by the P-or-P philosophy... easiest is verification of previous results in a slightly different regime.
I'm not claiming that the scientists in this debate are bad scientists... I'm claiming that they're getting caught up in a problem that is so incredibly complex that we're far from having a more-than-cursory handle on. A lot of this is pioneering work... and even pioneers in sciences can get things wrong or not understand everything (how many refinements of Einstein's relativity theory have there been in the last couple decades, for example?).
It's not just about politics or philosophy or science or anything like that. It's seeing the maturation of a whole discipline of science. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that alarmists may be taking things too far. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that there are politics involved here. He may be off-base in a number of points, but cooler heads will prevail eventually. This is an exciting time to watch all this... it's like our generation's relativity (20's and 30's) or nuclear chemistry (late-40's to 60's).
Those who are getting up in arms about all this... settle down. Seriously. Your hyperventilations are only speeding up the global warming process!;) Cooler heads will prevail eventually.
I would suggest anyone interested in hurricanes to read this FAQ. It is relatively regularly updated with new research and information.
TFA has some interesting points, but electromagnetic forces? How about simple thermodynamics? The troposphere responds to thermal forcings more readily than electromagnetic. (This is not necessarily true of the very upper reaches of the atmosphere, e.g. ionosphere, where electromagnetic forcings by the sun have not been heavily filtered and where the diatomic molecules of N2 and O2 do not make up the majority of the air.)
He is right, though, in a analogue way about the hurricane being a capacitor and that it needs to release heat energy somehow. He's just completely wrong on how hurricanes typically do this.
Hurricanes are warm core systems. This means that the center of the hurricane is warmer than the environment it lives in. This is required to keep the winds in balance. In a developing storm, the warm core is thought to form because of all the condensational heating. Then, as the storm strengthens, the heating from the convection (in a way) fluxes into the eye which allows the storm to strengthen and stay in balance (this is known as thermal wind balance, one of the fundamental balances in vertically-varying fluids... it is the phenomenon that explains why jet streams happen over frontal systems). In a way, one could think of the warm core of the hurricane as a sort of thermal capacitor... but it's not a perfect analogue.
Additionally, with all that energy transfer, why doesn't a strong hurricane keep strengthening even with all the convection happening? Simply put, the convection helps maintain the hurricane vortex against friction. Since the hurricane has strong winds near the surface, an unforced vortex will spin down very quickly. The convection around the eyewall provides the energy needed to keep the vortex spinning against friction. Take a moment and think about how much energy friction must be dissipating, then, if you need as much convection as is seen with strong hurricanes.
The hurricane is well-known to be a strongly balanced vortex that has an obvious structure that doesn't require any odd forcings like electromagnetics. Thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are all that are needed to understand 90% or more of the hurricane's structure. Electromagnetics in hurricanes is pretty silly. Besides, it's been well-observed that, given the strength of the convection in hurricanes, they have very little lightning compared to continental thunderstorms. The exact reasons for this are still speculative, but deal with the different precipitation processes in the two types of convection. Either way, I found all this rather silly. It's interesting to think about, but, from an expert in the field, pretty much ludicrous on its face.
The best science has always been that which asks the most basic (non-philosophical) questions. "Why do things fall down?" "What causes it to rain?" "Why are there so many different materials in the world?"
Science has two main branches. There's the practical branch which tries to form answers based on specific questions and applications. But, more esoterically, there is the basic branch... the one that tries to answer the supposedly "simple" questions. Laypeople care about the practical branch since those have obvious results. Scientists, though, care about the basic branch more since basic research leaves more questions for both branches that need answering.
I always tell people to think about science as a house. Basic research is the foundation, the walls, the roof... all the parts that every house has. Practical research is all the carpeting, the curtains, the cabinets, everything else that makes each house different. A good house puts money into all the parts of the house, both the walls and the cabinets on the walls... both the carpeting and the floor its attached to. Ignore one part and the house suffers. Fixing and maintaining the walls isn't as glamorous and pretty as spending money on changing the cabinets, but it needs to be done.
So, if this was addressed to someone like George W. Bush, it would read:
George Washington 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Bush, DC 20500
No better way to impress potential recruits than to completely screw up the address label, right? I'm still surprised, to this day, that it got delivered in the first place, but it was a great laugh, especially since I didn't want a CS job and especially not with Microsoft.
Collateral damage, though, to many email users isn't worth it. The only reason that mine got through to my sister was the simple fact that I have access to a large number of email addresses.
What happens if I only used yahoo.com, for example? Am I supposed to just sign up for another free email address just to send that one important email? And what if that one is blocked, too?
Blacklists are a terrible idea as soon as they prevent innocent users from communicating in an easy way. If it takes me four-plus different accounts just to send an email to someone, well... you can finish that thought.
Blacklists are not a great idea for stopping SPAM.
After all, it's not like I'm talking about joeblow.cn here... I'm talking about yahoo.com... mac.com... domains which have millions of legitimate and innocent users. Punishing everyone for a couple of abusive losers is draconian and stupid.
I had the unfortunate "joy" of being blocked by some of these draconian blacklists. My sister requested some information from me for a trip that she has upcoming via my yahoo.com account. After it bounced from her ISP saying that I was sending it from a "spam-hosting" ISP, I sent it from my mac.com account. Same schtick. After a couple other choices, I finally got it sent from my.edu account.
Her ISP uses SpamBag for their blacklist. SpamBag? ScamBag is more like it.
No wonder my sister is disenchanted by email. Her yahoo account got spammed to no end, then she can't get emails from most of her friends since they get bounced back by her ISP's stupid blacklist.
Blacklists are fine and dandy in principle, but practice has shown them to be useless. IT managers, just drop them. They're more annoying than anything.
Those two are both MUCH more adaptable to film than any of the Hitchhiker books and were just as good.
And personally, I enjoyed Long Dark more than HDA, but they were both some of the more entertaining reads I've had.
- Jellisky
Back in my undergraduate days, I actually worked on a similar problem to this at the Rose-Hulman REU. I initially thought that the theorem he proved was the conjecture we put at the end of our final writeup, but it sounds like he proved something else, sadly.
The Ramanujan congruences are incredible bits of number theory. They're pathetically simple to explain to the lay-person, but often take some ingenious logical and mathematical work to prove them. I learned so much about other higher-level mathematics during that REU than I would've in any one class in graduate school.
Mass closure of Net Cafes? Since when would China care about the mass fluxes going in and out of their cafes and making sure all that stays balanced? Are Net cafes there mass sinks or sources? I thought things like that should be naturally balanced, right?.........
Solar flares are $[Diety]'s fireworks. $[Diety] is obviously celebrating it all.
(It's all about the spin. Karl Rove would be proud of me... and that makes me feel so incredibly dirty right now. Must clean off stain of Bush/Rove appreciation... IT BURNS!!!!)
Nice idea, but you'll quickly find out that neural nets in radiative transfer are... well, to put it lightly... completely useless except for classification. So, yes, you may be able to tell what is water vapor and what isn't, but you won't be able to tell anything from a mass that has a little radio noise and some water vapor signal? What do you do then? Trust the measurement?
Neural nets are nice tools, but are not the solution to a lot of problems in radiation. If you just seek to classify, that's doable. If you seek to still get any meaningful measurements, good luck.
In one game I played, one of my friends, first turn whatsoever in the game, laughs, plays "Play All", then plays a random Goal card, then the "All You Need Is Love" Goal card, then followed up by the "Love" Item. Five seconds after the game started, it was done.
The next game then proceeded to take 10 re-shuffles of the discard pile.
... no parties? Seriously, what's the purpose of a political party? The natural progression is to a "Property Party" in today's world. Political parties only exist to push a narrow agenda. Take away political parties and you get people who have to think and care about what their actual constituency thinks and what others may need, not what the constituency of the "party" thinks and pushes on them.
Political parties only exist because of the social "need" for groups and the pure laziness of the common person in the political process. Why think and balance needs and wants when you can just find the party that's closest to the way you think?
Notice that NO2 leads to the production of ozone in the TROPOSPHERE.
The ozone layer is in the stratosphere.
Ozone in the troposphere is not all that great, since it causes a lot of problems in respiration. Ozone in the stratosphere is good since it cannot be inhaled (too far away from us) and keeps that UV radiation from hurting us.
The Kansas Turnpike has no booths until you actually enter or exit it (I've travelled on it a bit)... and it's over 230 miles long. So, theoretically, you could drive the whole thing for 200+ miles and never hit a booth in that stretch.;)
(You get a ticket signifying where you entered, present the ticket at the exit booth when you exit, and pay the right amount there. It makes more sense than those god-awful $0.40 booths that are prevalent around places like Chicago... and can someone explain the rationale for $0.40? That's the most stupid amount of money outside of $0.41 for a toll booth. It requires at least 3 coins, no matter what, and of different denominations, to optimize the solution!)
Slashdot Mirror
As one of those researchers seeking that more complete understanding, I can tell you that we're finding out that things are a whole lot more complex than expected. We're just discovering the physical processes that force some of the vital parts of the hurricane vortex. Rainbands are still a topic of active research and things like concentric (secondary) eyewalls are just beginning to have the spotlights turned on them. (Interestingly, there was a lull in hurricane research from about 1985 to 1995 (coincident with the tail end of the quiet Atlantic period). The field has exploded in popularity in the last ten years, though, thanks to some terrific new data sources and technological advances (computing, instrumentation like radar, satellite).)
Truthfully, and this is my humble informed opinion... controllable weather modification is still several decades away, at best. And that sort of stuff will be individual thunderstorm modification. I don't think the technology to even produce a significant, predictable change to something as powerful as the hurricane vortex is here yet.
It's definitely interesting stuff to think about, though.
-Jellisky
One wonders if this is similar to what is occasionally seen in hurricanes: polygonal eyes. (If interested, do a Google search on "polygonal eyewalls" and get a pretty nice synopsis of the literature on the topic.) It isn't terribly out of the range of possibility that simple theories like these may be enough to explain a lot of this phenomenon. And, yes, polygonal eyewalls in real hurricanes can be very persistent, if the vortex itself doesn't change much and proper balances are maintained. On a planet like Saturn, I would imagine that things don't change too much even from year to year, so the whole pattern could persist for decades if unperturbed.
--Jellisky
Still one of my all-time favorite spots to stop on a storm-chase day where you need to waste an hour or two! After all, it's not like you have all that much to really /do/ out in that particular middle-of-nowhere.
-Jellisky
Ah, but that is where you are quite wrong, since even within the lol-family of iChars, there are subtle differences between the amount and force of laughter implied by the lol-family member being used.
A simple "l" is a short chuckle.
Adding the exclamation point, "l!", gives the chuckle a short punctuality, more like a chortle.
Capitalizing it adds volume, so that "L!" is a loud chortle.
"lol" is a soft laugh. "lol!" is a short, soft laugh. "LOL!" is a short, loud laugh.
Moving up in the lol-family, we have "rofl", then "lmao", and "rotflmao", to which the same rules with "!" and capitalization apply. Further gradiations within the lol-family exist within small groups.
-Jellisky
In addendum, I may add that a lot of the holes are typically significant issues with the data sources themselves. A non-trivial amount of the data that is used in various parts of climate research (and other atmospheric disciplines) is, well, not very good for the purpose that it is being used in. Data that is only good to +/- 10 units is being used to show trends of +/- 1 or 2 units over the entire timeline, for example. And little of that error problem is being addressed by the authors of the work... for various reasons. But, it's often the best data they have to work with.
:-D
There IS some quality data out there, but a lot of it just is not that great. And much of the really great data hasn't been accumulated long enough to really show long-term trends, since it has only been collected in the last 10-20 years. A lot of the issues in the field of climate are just being brought up and handled. That's why I said that it's an exciting time to be watching this field closely. Climatologists are just beginning to get some clout and truly innovative and solid ideas in the last couple decades. It's a field that is maturing literally in front of our eyes. In about a decade or two, we should have a lot more understanding as to how the climate system is working. And a lot of that will just come from the better data that will have some time to accumulate. And from some incredible ideas and great minds.
Read up on many science history books... you'll see the parallel sort of issues between the growth of current climate change science and other sciences as they began to mature. This is a rough, rough period with a lot of conflicting ideas, philosophies, and beliefs. But, it's exciting to watch and be a part of! Eventually, we'll understand what's happening better. Until then, enjoy the ride! I know I am.
-Jellisky
A number of these holes HAVE been poked and published. But, it's never enough to just poke the holes... you have to do something "new and interesting". They get discussed and poked and plugged... just not necessarily by me. ;) I have my own /other/ problems to work on.
But, the holes are being worked on. They get brought up in the parts of science a lot of people don't get to hear about: the colloqium discussions, the interpersonal meetings, conferences. Like I said, cooler heads will prevail in the end.
-Jellisky
... is irrelevant to this discussion.
y cle.html ) as a prime example of what happens when we begin looking more closely at these problems. Many scientists are tossing out potential hypotheses in a science that is very difficult to easily test these hypotheses properly. There's a rush to put out results of any type by the P-or-P philosophy... easiest is verification of previous results in a slightly different regime.
;) Cooler heads will prevail eventually.
There is something that he points out (in a roundabout way) that needs to be said: There is a lot of bad science going on in this debate. Both sides.
Now, granted, I'm a lowly Ph.D. student in Atmospheric Sciences studying hurricanes... what would I know about this, right? (Yes, that's slightly sarcastic.)
"Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now. (I speak mainly for atmospheric science articles in those journals. Other articles may be fine... I don't know.)
The real science happens in the less-public journals. And, believe it or not, the actual science always leads to more questions than answers. There are details that aren't covered in science news coverage that are vital to making valid conclusions in these issues. But, the nature of the "publish-or-perish" funding makes careful science difficult to do.
So, we're left with more questions than answers. Look at Dr. Denning's carbon cycle findings ( http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/globalcarbonc
I'm not claiming that the scientists in this debate are bad scientists... I'm claiming that they're getting caught up in a problem that is so incredibly complex that we're far from having a more-than-cursory handle on. A lot of this is pioneering work... and even pioneers in sciences can get things wrong or not understand everything (how many refinements of Einstein's relativity theory have there been in the last couple decades, for example?).
It's not just about politics or philosophy or science or anything like that. It's seeing the maturation of a whole discipline of science. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that alarmists may be taking things too far. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that there are politics involved here. He may be off-base in a number of points, but cooler heads will prevail eventually. This is an exciting time to watch all this... it's like our generation's relativity (20's and 30's) or nuclear chemistry (late-40's to 60's).
Those who are getting up in arms about all this... settle down. Seriously. Your hyperventilations are only speeding up the global warming process!
-Jellisky
Especially as a researcher of hurricanes.
This man needs to look at some actual real atmospheric science work. Even a little search would get him a wealth of hurricane information:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html
I would suggest anyone interested in hurricanes to read this FAQ. It is relatively regularly updated with new research and information.
TFA has some interesting points, but electromagnetic forces? How about simple thermodynamics? The troposphere responds to thermal forcings more readily than electromagnetic. (This is not necessarily true of the very upper reaches of the atmosphere, e.g. ionosphere, where electromagnetic forcings by the sun have not been heavily filtered and where the diatomic molecules of N2 and O2 do not make up the majority of the air.)
He is right, though, in a analogue way about the hurricane being a capacitor and that it needs to release heat energy somehow. He's just completely wrong on how hurricanes typically do this.
Hurricanes are warm core systems. This means that the center of the hurricane is warmer than the environment it lives in. This is required to keep the winds in balance. In a developing storm, the warm core is thought to form because of all the condensational heating. Then, as the storm strengthens, the heating from the convection (in a way) fluxes into the eye which allows the storm to strengthen and stay in balance (this is known as thermal wind balance, one of the fundamental balances in vertically-varying fluids... it is the phenomenon that explains why jet streams happen over frontal systems). In a way, one could think of the warm core of the hurricane as a sort of thermal capacitor... but it's not a perfect analogue.
Additionally, with all that energy transfer, why doesn't a strong hurricane keep strengthening even with all the convection happening? Simply put, the convection helps maintain the hurricane vortex against friction. Since the hurricane has strong winds near the surface, an unforced vortex will spin down very quickly. The convection around the eyewall provides the energy needed to keep the vortex spinning against friction. Take a moment and think about how much energy friction must be dissipating, then, if you need as much convection as is seen with strong hurricanes.
The hurricane is well-known to be a strongly balanced vortex that has an obvious structure that doesn't require any odd forcings like electromagnetics. Thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are all that are needed to understand 90% or more of the hurricane's structure. Electromagnetics in hurricanes is pretty silly. Besides, it's been well-observed that, given the strength of the convection in hurricanes, they have very little lightning compared to continental thunderstorms. The exact reasons for this are still speculative, but deal with the different precipitation processes in the two types of convection. Either way, I found all this rather silly. It's interesting to think about, but, from an expert in the field, pretty much ludicrous on its face.
-Jellisky
That's exactly the right answer.
The best science has always been that which asks the most basic (non-philosophical) questions. "Why do things fall down?" "What causes it to rain?" "Why are there so many different materials in the world?"
Science has two main branches. There's the practical branch which tries to form answers based on specific questions and applications. But, more esoterically, there is the basic branch... the one that tries to answer the supposedly "simple" questions. Laypeople care about the practical branch since those have obvious results. Scientists, though, care about the basic branch more since basic research leaves more questions for both branches that need answering.
I always tell people to think about science as a house. Basic research is the foundation, the walls, the roof... all the parts that every house has. Practical research is all the carpeting, the curtains, the cabinets, everything else that makes each house different. A good house puts money into all the parts of the house, both the walls and the cabinets on the walls... both the carpeting and the floor its attached to. Ignore one part and the house suffers. Fixing and maintaining the walls isn't as glamorous and pretty as spending money on changing the cabinets, but it needs to be done.
-Jellisky
I was a junior in undergrad in '99 who had done some programming contests, but was only a CS minor.
I got a letter addressed in the following manner at my undergraduate dorm (using variable names instead of my real information):
*FIRST NAME* *CITY*
*DORM ADDRESS*
*LAST NAME*, *STATE* *ZIP CODE*
So, if this was addressed to someone like George W. Bush, it would read:
George Washington
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Bush, DC 20500
No better way to impress potential recruits than to completely screw up the address label, right? I'm still surprised, to this day, that it got delivered in the first place, but it was a great laugh, especially since I didn't want a CS job and especially not with Microsoft.
-Jellisky
Collateral damage, though, to many email users isn't worth it. The only reason that mine got through to my sister was the simple fact that I have access to a large number of email addresses.
What happens if I only used yahoo.com, for example? Am I supposed to just sign up for another free email address just to send that one important email? And what if that one is blocked, too?
Blacklists are a terrible idea as soon as they prevent innocent users from communicating in an easy way. If it takes me four-plus different accounts just to send an email to someone, well... you can finish that thought.
Blacklists are not a great idea for stopping SPAM.
After all, it's not like I'm talking about joeblow.cn here... I'm talking about yahoo.com... mac.com... domains which have millions of legitimate and innocent users. Punishing everyone for a couple of abusive losers is draconian and stupid.
-Jellisky
I had the unfortunate "joy" of being blocked by some of these draconian blacklists. My sister requested some information from me for a trip that she has upcoming via my yahoo.com account. After it bounced from her ISP saying that I was sending it from a "spam-hosting" ISP, I sent it from my mac.com account. Same schtick. After a couple other choices, I finally got it sent from my .edu account.
Her ISP uses SpamBag for their blacklist. SpamBag? ScamBag is more like it.
No wonder my sister is disenchanted by email. Her yahoo account got spammed to no end, then she can't get emails from most of her friends since they get bounced back by her ISP's stupid blacklist.
Blacklists are fine and dandy in principle, but practice has shown them to be useless. IT managers, just drop them. They're more annoying than anything.
-Jellisky
That is the correct terminology. ;) (Storm chaser and atmospheric scientist... I do know that.)
c ldtyp/oth/mm.rxml
And, yes, they are named as such since they look like boobs. ("Mammatus" comes from "mammory", the milk-producing glands in mammal breasts.)
They are thought to form as parcels of air drop after loading up with precipitation.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/
And there's the random reply to the random post...
-Jellisky
Those two are both MUCH more adaptable to film than any of the Hitchhiker books and were just as good. And personally, I enjoyed Long Dark more than HDA, but they were both some of the more entertaining reads I've had. - Jellisky
That's awesome!
Back in my undergraduate days, I actually worked on a similar problem to this at the Rose-Hulman REU. I initially thought that the theorem he proved was the conjecture we put at the end of our final writeup, but it sounds like he proved something else, sadly.
The Ramanujan congruences are incredible bits of number theory. They're pathetically simple to explain to the lay-person, but often take some ingenious logical and mathematical work to prove them. I learned so much about other higher-level mathematics during that REU than I would've in any one class in graduate school.
-Jellisky
I've always preferred tactical nukes, but I'm pretty cavalier about collateral damage. YMMV.
-Jellisky
... physics too much when you start thinking:
... ... ...
Mass closure of Net Cafes? Since when would China care about the mass fluxes going in and out of their cafes and making sure all that stays balanced? Are Net cafes there mass sinks or sources? I thought things like that should be naturally balanced, right?
Never mind.
-Jellisky
... to hear someone attempt to say that entire word in one breath.
-Jellisky
Solar flares are $[Diety]'s fireworks. $[Diety] is obviously celebrating it all.
(It's all about the spin. Karl Rove would be proud of me... and that makes me feel so incredibly dirty right now. Must clean off stain of Bush/Rove appreciation... IT BURNS!!!!)
-Jellisky
Nice idea, but you'll quickly find out that neural nets in radiative transfer are... well, to put it lightly... completely useless except for classification. So, yes, you may be able to tell what is water vapor and what isn't, but you won't be able to tell anything from a mass that has a little radio noise and some water vapor signal? What do you do then? Trust the measurement?
Neural nets are nice tools, but are not the solution to a lot of problems in radiation. If you just seek to classify, that's doable. If you seek to still get any meaningful measurements, good luck.
-Jellisky
That's all? ;)
In one game I played, one of my friends, first turn whatsoever in the game, laughs, plays "Play All", then plays a random Goal card, then the "All You Need Is Love" Goal card, then followed up by the "Love" Item. Five seconds after the game started, it was done.
The next game then proceeded to take 10 re-shuffles of the discard pile.
I love that game.
-Jellisky
... no parties? Seriously, what's the purpose of a political party? The natural progression is to a "Property Party" in today's world. Political parties only exist to push a narrow agenda. Take away political parties and you get people who have to think and care about what their actual constituency thinks and what others may need, not what the constituency of the "party" thinks and pushes on them.
Political parties only exist because of the social "need" for groups and the pure laziness of the common person in the political process. Why think and balance needs and wants when you can just find the party that's closest to the way you think?
-Jellisky
Notice that NO2 leads to the production of ozone in the TROPOSPHERE.
The ozone layer is in the stratosphere.
Ozone in the troposphere is not all that great, since it causes a lot of problems in respiration. Ozone in the stratosphere is good since it cannot be inhaled (too far away from us) and keeps that UV radiation from hurting us.
With ozone, it's all about where it is.
-Jellisky
The Kansas Turnpike has no booths until you actually enter or exit it (I've travelled on it a bit)... and it's over 230 miles long. So, theoretically, you could drive the whole thing for 200+ miles and never hit a booth in that stretch. ;)
(You get a ticket signifying where you entered, present the ticket at the exit booth when you exit, and pay the right amount there. It makes more sense than those god-awful $0.40 booths that are prevalent around places like Chicago... and can someone explain the rationale for $0.40? That's the most stupid amount of money outside of $0.41 for a toll booth. It requires at least 3 coins, no matter what, and of different denominations, to optimize the solution!)
-Jellisky
IBM isn't THAT evil. That's what would happen if someone like Sun made those.
:-D
IBM's would go into a full screen loop of George Carlin standup routines. Uncensored, of course.
-Jellisky