In this case, you don't, any more than a turbocharger "runs" the engine it makes more efficient.
This thing can, however, help your space heater by scavenging heat that would otherwise be wasted by going through the walls instead of into you. But you can get almost the same effect by adding styrofoam insulation to the walls, which would be much cheaper and more reliable.
For most social networking, your real name is your best asset, and when everyone is verified to be who they are, the spam and trolling drop to minimal levels.
For agitprop boards, everyone should be anonymous. Spam and trolling are innate, but most people consider everyone else's propaganda to be spam and trolling anyway.
Attempting to require the ability to be anonymous on anyone's social-networking server is like demanding the right to pee from the second deck at Wrigley Field.
You'll find bugs in software every time you change software. Hopefully in alpha and regression testing. Or in Beta testing, if you do it old-school and dogfood it instead of pretending that the first release to the public is Beta testing, or just skip it altogether.
No, it doesn't. In the second graph, carbon is varying in a range until ~1850 (industrial revolution, anyone?). Temperature is varying in a declining range until 1900. Then both climb like a monkey with a jalapeno in its ass.
The cause for concern is that we are manufacturing the cause for warming and the poles are melting because of it.
Ever notice how ice works?
Put some in your glass of gatorade, and if the glass is cold enough, it doesn't melt. Warm up the glass, and the ice starts to melt, and the temperature in the gatorade remains at the melting temperature of the ice.
Once the ice runs out, the temperature of the gatorade starts to rise until the entire glass is radiating as much heat as it's absorbing.
The sun, it should be noted here, puts an ungodly fuckload of energy into the Earth, and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more of that energy stays here.
Ergo, once the polar ice is gone, it's going to get hot.
And the fact that Correlation != causation does not mean Correlation == (!causation).
With this much data, something as simple as the principle of parsimony should direct you to Correlation == Causation.
But you don't need that, because this data isn't everything we know about the situation. It is, however, data that proves the industry shills are completely wrong in their claim that there's no correlation and no causation.
You can take any set of data and make a graph to support your side
No, you can't. Not always.
When you show hundreds of millions of years of data, and a plain drawing of the graph shows a correlation, then it says what it says, and I don't have to pick a side to know what it means.
No, it doesn't. But when you have hundreds of millions of years of statistics, you can make a strong case (p0.05) that the one is causing the other. And then you can go about deducing which way it should go.
1. Carbon causes warming. Lots of proof of that, and no way to suggest Carbon causes cooling. It's certainly not uncorrelated.
2. Warming causes carbon. Actually, the proof is the opposite; warming causes vegetation, which sequesters carbon and causes O2. This is a negative feedback in the system. If Warming caused carbon, and carbon caused warming, the Earth would be on fire by now.
So we deduct #2 from the possible and whatever is left (#1), however improbable, is the truth.
My Android phone frequently does not lock when the screen times out.
And it's not just a matter of forgetting to paint the lock screen. It's unlocked when I hit the power button. Sometimes a day or two after I put it down.
The same child can tell from this graph that CO2 began rising sharply at the beginning of the 1900s and was followed by a very well-correlated rise in temperature.
These aren't models, they're data. If modellers have any problems, it's with their ability to create a mathematical theory to predict temperature from CO2. The Earth does a rather fantastic job of it experimentally, and a non-formulaic, table-driven, statistical method of predicting temperature from CO2 falls out of the data. Using that, plus the rather easy deduction that fossil-fuel consumption created the rise in CO2 over the past century, anyone with any idea what science actually is can tell you that if we don't start to turn that curve flat or down, the temperature will continue to rise along with the CO2.
No conflict there at all, except one manufactured by an industry that pays scientists to pretend they're telling the truth when in fact they're working for the industry.
"It turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html
That's just one link with facts showing the "grass-roots" nature of the TP to be a fraud. The Internet is full of them.
If you want to affect this nation positively, try building it up, instead of supporting people who want to crash it to the ground so they can sell it for parts.
America is no doubt not pleased with the Bush era spending.
But you and your TP moron friends are dead wrong as to the solution.
Over 70% of Americans want the Bush tax cuts repealed, and over half want taxes raised even further on high-income individuals, who have successfully skated on having to pay for what the Republicans did to this nation.
The TP is the epitome of cognitive dissonance, a pretend grass-roots organization whose democratic end goal is the installation of a plutocracy. An organization whose symbols are those of the American Revolution, whose aims are to undo the American Revolution. You're being mocked by your own political choices. Stop listening to your propagandists long enough to realize you've been had.
It precipitates less if the temperature is higher.
CO2 can make the temperature higher, world-wide.
As the temperature rises the water-vapor content of the atmosphere rises with it, amplifying the effect of the CO2.
So when the poster with the attitude said that CO2 was negligible as a proportion of the atmosphere's mass, he must have meant it in the same way a bullet is negligible as a proportion of its victim's body-mass. In the way that his own systems, by pumping blood out of the holes it leaves, amplify its effect out of proportion to the mass ratio, by doing something otherwise completely normal and natural.
Slashdot Mirror
I've clicked on everything I can see, and I don't see the actual efficiency rating they keep alluding to.
In this case, you don't, any more than a turbocharger "runs" the engine it makes more efficient.
This thing can, however, help your space heater by scavenging heat that would otherwise be wasted by going through the walls instead of into you. But you can get almost the same effect by adding styrofoam insulation to the walls, which would be much cheaper and more reliable.
For most social networking, your real name is your best asset, and when everyone is verified to be who they are, the spam and trolling drop to minimal levels.
For agitprop boards, everyone should be anonymous. Spam and trolling are innate, but most people consider everyone else's propaganda to be spam and trolling anyway.
Attempting to require the ability to be anonymous on anyone's social-networking server is like demanding the right to pee from the second deck at Wrigley Field.
How is 5 days "no time"?
Just how dumb are the people who write Java?
You'll find bugs in software every time you change software. Hopefully in alpha and regression testing. Or in Beta testing, if you do it old-school and dogfood it instead of pretending that the first release to the public is Beta testing, or just skip it altogether.
No, it doesn't. In the second graph, carbon is varying in a range until ~1850 (industrial revolution, anyone?). Temperature is varying in a declining range until 1900. Then both climb like a monkey with a jalapeno in its ass.
The cause for concern is that we are manufacturing the cause for warming and the poles are melting because of it.
Ever notice how ice works?
Put some in your glass of gatorade, and if the glass is cold enough, it doesn't melt. Warm up the glass, and the ice starts to melt, and the temperature in the gatorade remains at the melting temperature of the ice.
Once the ice runs out, the temperature of the gatorade starts to rise until the entire glass is radiating as much heat as it's absorbing.
The sun, it should be noted here, puts an ungodly fuckload of energy into the Earth, and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more of that energy stays here.
Ergo, once the polar ice is gone, it's going to get hot.
Any child can tell you're being a hypocrite. See posts above for why your claim about correlation and causation is moot.
We do not rest on correlation alone. But when someone claims there is no correlation, we have this data to shove up their ass.
Look at the second link I posted. It proves you are wrong.
And the fact that Correlation != causation does not mean Correlation == (!causation).
With this much data, something as simple as the principle of parsimony should direct you to Correlation == Causation.
But you don't need that, because this data isn't everything we know about the situation. It is, however, data that proves the industry shills are completely wrong in their claim that there's no correlation and no causation.
You can take any set of data and make a graph to support your side
No, you can't. Not always.
When you show hundreds of millions of years of data, and a plain drawing of the graph shows a correlation, then it says what it says, and I don't have to pick a side to know what it means.
No, it doesn't. But when you have hundreds of millions of years of statistics, you can make a strong case (p0.05) that the one is causing the other. And then you can go about deducing which way it should go.
1. Carbon causes warming. Lots of proof of that, and no way to suggest Carbon causes cooling. It's certainly not uncorrelated.
2. Warming causes carbon. Actually, the proof is the opposite; warming causes vegetation, which sequesters carbon and causes O2. This is a negative feedback in the system. If Warming caused carbon, and carbon caused warming, the Earth would be on fire by now.
So we deduct #2 from the possible and whatever is left (#1), however improbable, is the truth.
Carbon causes warming. QED. Now go play.
My Android phone frequently does not lock when the screen times out.
And it's not just a matter of forgetting to paint the lock screen. It's unlocked when I hit the power button. Sometimes a day or two after I put it down.
Why should they be conflicted?
http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/Climate-Change.htm
Any child in the audience for that webpage can take one look at the graph of temperature vs. CO2 and tell how well-correlated they are.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp
The same child can tell from this graph that CO2 began rising sharply at the beginning of the 1900s and was followed by a very well-correlated rise in temperature.
These aren't models, they're data. If modellers have any problems, it's with their ability to create a mathematical theory to predict temperature from CO2. The Earth does a rather fantastic job of it experimentally, and a non-formulaic, table-driven, statistical method of predicting temperature from CO2 falls out of the data. Using that, plus the rather easy deduction that fossil-fuel consumption created the rise in CO2 over the past century, anyone with any idea what science actually is can tell you that if we don't start to turn that curve flat or down, the temperature will continue to rise along with the CO2.
No conflict there at all, except one manufactured by an industry that pays scientists to pretend they're telling the truth when in fact they're working for the industry.
Alarmist marklar!
Alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist, marklar alarmist alarmist alarmist.
Marklar.
Linguists know that "out" is not a verb.
You are being played for a sucker.
"It turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html
That's just one link with facts showing the "grass-roots" nature of the TP to be a fraud. The Internet is full of them.
If you want to affect this nation positively, try building it up, instead of supporting people who want to crash it to the ground so they can sell it for parts.
America is no doubt not pleased with the Bush era spending.
But you and your TP moron friends are dead wrong as to the solution.
Over 70% of Americans want the Bush tax cuts repealed, and over half want taxes raised even further on high-income individuals, who have successfully skated on having to pay for what the Republicans did to this nation.
The TP is the epitome of cognitive dissonance, a pretend grass-roots organization whose democratic end goal is the installation of a plutocracy. An organization whose symbols are those of the American Revolution, whose aims are to undo the American Revolution. You're being mocked by your own political choices. Stop listening to your propagandists long enough to realize you've been had.
No, the correlation is much tighter than you're claiming.
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
He's never exactly like a democrat, and what he becomes is part of the farthest-right reaches of the Republican Party.
Don't let reality form yours:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129926390
The people who attend the rallies are being spoon-fed dogma to guide their votes, while the candidates they elect have an agenda set by the $$'s.
It's a McParty, and it's willing to destroy the country and sell off the pieces.
Look at your sources of funding. The TP was created by the Koch brothers.
It precipitates less if the temperature is higher.
CO2 can make the temperature higher, world-wide.
As the temperature rises the water-vapor content of the atmosphere rises with it, amplifying the effect of the CO2.
So when the poster with the attitude said that CO2 was negligible as a proportion of the atmosphere's mass, he must have meant it in the same way a bullet is negligible as a proportion of its victim's body-mass. In the way that his own systems, by pumping blood out of the holes it leaves, amplify its effect out of proportion to the mass ratio, by doing something otherwise completely normal and natural.
He is. He's mocking the TP's cynical pretense that they, too, are good guys.
He knows full well that the TP isn't grass-roots, but is rather a wholly owned production of the Koch brothers.