for popularity it's mighty tough to beat the trusty 47 KOhm 5% tolerance 1/4 watt film resistor for popularity.
. You are outright populistic! A crowd pleaser with no vision whatsoever! Someone really caring about others would at least mention that resistive and capacitive balasts must be balanced!
I think the current practice in developing code and building a wall match each other more than your boss thinks.
A builder builds a wall according to plan an without any obvious faults in it. If there are serious problems with just the building of the wall a honest builder will redo the work in his own time.
You deliver a piece of code (function, module or object) according the specifications without obvious errors in it (after technical testing). Your job (or item on the scrum board) is not done as long as these tests are not completed. If the use of this piece of code shows serious shortcommings if it is integrated in the whole it could be sent back to you and you task reopened.
Of course if during further development there is a problem with this piece of code that will require a fix that is not part of the original task. For the builder it is the same: if it turns out that the wall is on the wrong place due to an error in the plan or there should have been a extra hole in it (door, window,...) it must be 'fixed' afterwards.
I'm sorry to brake it to you but evolution IS a fact.
Evolution is the term the scientific community has given to the observation that if you place all fossil evidence in chronological order (btw you don't need radioactive dating for it although this will make it much more accurate) there is a clear... evolution (it really is the best word for it).
The oldest fossils are smaller, more 'primitive' (simpeler, fewer functions,...) and fewer species.
Then the question is: how come? What is the mechanism that drives this evolution. And that is the theory of evolution. So even if the theory would be proven wrong it would still have to explain what we allready know.
And what do we know? Well a lot: we have discovered the basic mechanism behind evolution: genetics. From this genetic research we have confirmed what fossil records, finds and archeological and paleontologic research already stated: humans stem from other primates (commonly known as 'apes').
Stating that this is only a theory and there is still a residual chance that it is completely wrong is as wrong as stating that gravity does not exist. To be sure: the force of gravity is still a very badly understood part of science. But the fact that gravity exist will not go away by any mistakes we find in the theory of gravity.
I don't think you've spent a lot of time reading arguments by the "Creation science" crowd. I'd hardly call them "anti-rationalist" -- they have their brand of reason. They understand very well the way to put together a logical train of thought. They just don't begin with the same axioms as you do for that logical tree. Hence, they might be "anti-empiricist" to some degree.
I'm sorry but someone looking at the enourmous layers upon layers of deposits in the grand canyon and looking at the tree rings of trees that are more than 6000 years old and then still maintian with a straight face: there is no proof that the earth is more than 6000 years old will never have "a very well put together train of thought" in my eyes. In the Nye vs Ham debase there was even some kind of astronomer that still said with a straight face that there is no contradiction that the universe is only 6000 years old. While everyone knows that he treats objects (starts, milkyways, supernova's) most of which are much more than 6000 lightyears away Well this is crap.
And now they have the gall of calling it 'science' and 'the best explanation for the origin of life'? I just can't comprehend how this can be allowed.
And before you start with: "but I don't agree with them" etc: You do. Since your statement that their theory is perfectly logical but only starts from 'different axioms' is just what they are saying. Because if that would be the case there would be no reason to teach only the logic based on one set of axioms and not the other. Your statement actually credi
That can't possibly be true, because Technics stopped *making* T12's in 2010!
We (both as scientists and as sane human beings) have a similar feeling when you state that the earth and the whole of the universe is only 6000 years old. It just can't be right.
First define the topics. It is the THEORY of Evolution and the THEORY of Creationism. To declare eother as fact is not science. Science fact is observable, demostratable, repeatable. So since neither can do all 3, they are theories. I see the element of discussion is Faith. Do you believe in random progress, or intelligent design.
It's probably hopeless but I'll try anyway. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. If you look at the fossils and you place them in time you see how they... evolved (there is no better word for it) from a very simple species to ever more diverse and complex.
Then there is the theory of evolution that tries to explain this observations. If you don't believe the theory you still need (as a scientist) to explain this evolution with a new evolution theory. But the evolution is there and remains there.
And you can say: yes but it was God (or an intelligent designer) that created all this variaty. The problem is: we know the mechanism for all this evolution: genetics.
Through genetic analysis we can find traces of previous species from which we (or any other annimal) has evolved. So now you intelligent designer is reduced to generating a few changes in the genetic material in the course of millions of years. Not an efficent designer and he certainly didn't do much better than introducing random changes.
I am not worried about secularists being converted back to religion.
I think you underestimate what is at stake here. Isn't the background of this debate that creationism is getting serious foothold in science classes in certain partst of the US? This is why Bill referred to the 'viewers' and 'voters'. His message was clear: do you really want this kind of crap to be thought as science in science classes? This is about a generation that will have trouble distinguishing between science and just an opinion that is not based on any facts. And we see this confusion already around us (the global warming debate??)
So I don't see the point in playing it safe.
Well he didn't. He played it very well both tactically as strategically. When you start from the mindset "we have much better agruments as the others" you will communicate this attitude to your audience. Your opponent will use this to point out "look he clings to his oppinion and is deaf for anything else and then he accuses me of exactly that same thing!". In a debate tactics and strategy are very important. You have to understand: a lot of people judge the outcome purely based on the impression they got. Bill gave the impression of having a lot of facts and figures and spoke with a lot of authority. Ham spoke also with a lot of authority when he was citing the Bible, but not when talking about science.
What Bill did was simply pointing out: there is simply too much proof to ignore and your theory is not a theory at all. Its a story without any reasoning behind it.
And as you remarked in your original post: it worked very well. He made a much better impression than Ham.
I am very disappointed because I am an atheist and a science enthusiast,[...] This debate should have taken a philosophical turn towards the question of whether it's reasonable to assume natural laws are constant.
Well the idea that natural laws ar constant is the very basis of science. So if you go into debate about that it becomes (as you state correctly) a philosophical debate. It would appear to the viewer then that believing in the existence of natuaral law is a question of opinion. That it simply is a point of view. And that is exactly what creationists are stating. They say: hey why don't we get the chance to represent our point of view in the classroom? Our ideas are just as valid and scientifically sound. So then the debate is lost. The only thing you can do as a scientist is to point to all those things are all consistent with natural law and totally inconsistent with the idea that natural law change over time. And then you force your opponent to say things like: "Ok, yes there are more than 6000 year rings in that tree but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's more 6000 years old!". The people that cannot draw their own conclusion from that they are already convinced creationists and will never be converted anyway. The rest may have something to think about.
Don't get me wrong: I was also a bit frustrated at first but the more I reflect on it the more I think he did an excellent job of not falling in any pitfalls were you end up with a Yes/No discussion (which is a win for creationism as explained above) and at the same time forcing Ham to show his true face: a bible studier that will accept only "evidence" that supports his cause and nothing else.
With regards to the question about the ~6,000 light-year range of light we'd expect to see, the best answers I can personally give is two fold: 1. If we're assuming that 24 hour days are correct, then one could argue that it's no more difficult for God to make photons-in-transit from stars than it would be for Him to create the stars themselves.
I hope you realize that this is the main reason that creationism is not regarded as science. You start from a premise: the earth is only 6000 years old. And if any observation contradicts this premise you resort to the most fantastic and impossible explanations in order to 'salvage' your point of view. A scientist cannot do that he/she has to find an explanation that matches ALL observations. And assuming somehow whole stars and planets appeared out of nowhere but in a state that suggest actually they were there for billions of years etc. is actually ignoring the observation. It's not explainging the observation but dismissing it.
Well for me, I also try to avoid android. Not because I have an aversion against google (my enthousiasm since the first gmail account has cooled but has not turned to hatered or anything).
I simply don't seem to find my way around an android device very well.
I have currently a nokia N9 and I could imagine switching to windows phone, but android allways throws me off. No matter how may layers of UI they put on top of it, it never seems to give me an aura of simplicity. My wife has an android based phone. She is regularly puzzeled and muttering things like "why isn't this working". But contrary to me she just carries on and works around it.
Unfortunately, the make and model of the generator itself had little to do with why it melted down. Their maintenance was crap. Their backup systems didn't work. They were too cheap to bury a landfill-style containment unit under the ground. Cheap and poorly run with lies about maintenance and safety = every asian company ever.
Well the fact that they needed constant active cooling (inherent to the design) was the main factor. Without that the accident would not have happened. Remark that they decided to shut down the plant before the tsunami arrived. But even afther a shutdown the plant still needed a constant flow of active cooling.
I never heard anything about poor maintenance. What I did hear in the documentary is that the backup power groups were flooded. So through their placement they were out of the game almost immediatelly. So I don't think the maintanance was a big factor.
A: not enough data: there is an abundant amount of data. If you pooh-pooh it all away, then naturally there is nothing left. But anyone who is willing to look around (visit a glacier, read about polar ice melting, acidisation of the ocians, the 10 warmest year of the last 100 years, etc) can find the evidence.
B: Natural or not it does not make the problem go away. And about this "who do we think we are": read the IPPC FAQ about CO2 increase linked to human activity. How do we know it comes from burning fossil fuel? "The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. A heavy form of carbon, the carbon-13 isotope, is less abundant in vegetation and in fossil fuels that were formed from past vegetation, and is more abundant in carbon in the oceans and in volcanic or geothermal emissions. The relative amount of the carbon-13 isotope in the atmosphere has been declining, showing that the added carbon comes from fossil fuels and vegetation. Carbon also has a rare radioactive isotope, carbon-14, which is present in atmospheric CO2 but absent in fossil fuels. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel carbon was being added to the atmosphere."
C Cost are too high: This will be hard to explain to future generations "Yeah we knew something was wrong but couldn't be bothered to do something about it. You see, how would be still be able to afford a third car?" I'm sure you childeren will be impressed.
"The total radiative forcing of the Earth’s climate due to increases in the concentrations of the LLGHGs CO2, CH4 and N2O, and very likely the rate of increase in the total forcing due to these gases over the period since 1750, are unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (Figure TS.2). It is very likely that the sustained rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing from these greenhouse gases of about +1 W m–2 over the past four decades is at least six times faster than at any time during the two millennia before the Industrial Era, the period for which ice core data have the required temporal resolution. The radiative forcing due to these LLGHGs has the highest level of confidence of any forcing agent. {2.3, 6.4} " (from the IPPC report)
The rest of us see the chart and say "uh-oh, these two (CO2 and temperature) have been linked together for thousands of years and now we have totally wrecked the curve on one of them. That can't be good."
And you say "maybe it CAN be good". Well, maybe that nigerian guy really IS a rich banker that will pay you back a 1000 fold if you send him all your money... It's worth a try, right?
With the risk of fighting an impossible uphill battle, here goes:
If you still don't know if global warming is 'a thing' you can only blame yourself. There is an abundant amount of material on global warming available: from the most gigourous scientific studies to the most simple and easy to understand explanation for the laymen.
I (as a civil engineer) use the laymen explanation. I'm not so arogant to think that I can redo and improve on a scientific study. For me 'The inconvenient truth' (yes mod me down!) is still the best and most comprehensive. In it are the answer to some of your questions.
Like #1: over 1000 years of temperature records: in the film it is explained that they drill a hole in the artic ice to extract a cilinder of ice. This ice has grown over many centuries and throught the way it has melted the temperature can be derived. At the same time the level of CO2 can be measured too. And here comes the clue: in all those thousands and thousands of years, the CO2 curve and the temperature curve have been closely matched. If you know that the CO2 now is higher than it has ever been since many thousands of years it seems logical to conclude that the temperature will also rise above the 'normal' levels.
#2: Why geological terms? I don't see the relationship with climate. The question is: how will the climate respond to such a dramatic rise in CO2 levels that has never been seen before in such a short period of time? There is nothing to guarantee that the climate will respond on a geological timescale. It could be severely destabelized and respond violently in a mere decade? Maybe it does not. But are you willing to bet your childerens life on it? Aparently yes.
#3: I don't know this study but if it is about creationism I don't understeand the link with climate (except that creationists have the same habit of ignoring common sense if it goes against their 'beliefs')
#4 If you distrust the extrapolation of the CO2/temperature curve use the reasoning that's behind it. More CO2 captures more heat. It's that simple. Why does earth not either heat up until its uninhabitable (too much CO2) or cool down to a dead rock (not enough CO2) because higher temperatures tend to create more life which captures CO2 and more clouds which tend to reflect CO2. "There you are" you will say. "It's a self regulating system, we don't need to do anyting". The answer is yes: it regulates itself but the new equilibrium is not guaranteed to be agreeable for us. Life on earth will continue but it could be that lots of hurricanes, higher temperatures, combined with periods of draught could make life very unconfortable and may result that a total population of 11 billion people cannot be supported anymore...
If a fight broke out in a british cinema, there'd be a punch-up, the police would be called and someone would be spending the night in the cells.
[..]And that's how it tends to work: there are people carrying all around, I guess, but you'd never know it 99.9% of the time (if you're a layperson who wasn't trained to recognize someone carrying), since those people understand what's at stake, take their responsibility seriously, and know that there are laws barring them from even hinting to someone else that they are carrying.
Well the decline seems to be less spectacular lately (link) and is also a global trend aparently. Still compared to the UK (to which the GP was refering) it is still more than 10 times higher! (link) Maybe not such a strange remark, since both countries are at the oposite side of curve.
Yep. So what you're saying is: you have little money and from that small amount you have to spend a substantial amount on the interest of your loans while your rich counterpart can buy more with the same amount of money because he has a start capital on the bank that allows him to go for the option that requires a larger invesment now but is cheaper in the long run (car without loan that is more economical and that does not break down all the time!)
Of course it is expensive to be poor: - Good insulation of your house: not possible because it requires a big investment. - More energy efficient car: too expensive - Buy a car without an (expensive) loan: nope. - Get a more energy efficient heating: forget it. - Replace your washing machine, dryer etc with these new energy efficient (A+ rated) ones: I didn't think so - Replace all your light bulbs with more efficent LED's that have a longer life time.... well what do you think???
Question is: who is going to pay for watching this nuclear waste for the next couple of centuries? The nuclear industry? I would like to hope so, but I'm not at all confident...
In a rare surge of honnesty the Discovery Channel reconstruction of the Hudson miracle concedes that a the fact that the pilot had activated the APU meaning that the advance anti stall protection on the A320 was active clearly contributed to the miracle. At the time of hitting the water the plane whas flying slower and with a higher angle of attack than a human would safely be able to do...
My biggest gripe with all these monitoring system is the reasoning behind it: (from the post)
While the breathing and sleeping alerts will calm a lot of parents...
In what I see around me the opposite is true. Woried parrents scramble to these kind of devices and often will have their condition aggrivated even when no real danger exists. Don't get me wrong: if the docter has flagged you child as having a risk for e.g. crib death these things are a godsent. Problem is that everybody is buying them even when the baby is perfectly normal.
Slashdot Mirror
for popularity it's mighty tough to beat the trusty 47 KOhm 5% tolerance 1/4 watt film resistor for popularity.
.
You are outright populistic! A crowd pleaser with no vision whatsoever! Someone really caring about others would at least mention that resistive and capacitive balasts must be balanced!
You rightwing chauvenist pig! You!
I think the current practice in developing code and building a wall match each other more than your boss thinks.
A builder builds a wall according to plan an without any obvious faults in it. If there are serious problems with just the building of the wall a honest builder will redo the work in his own time.
You deliver a piece of code (function, module or object) according the specifications without obvious errors in it (after technical testing). Your job (or item on the scrum board) is not done as long as these tests are not completed. If the use of this piece of code shows serious shortcommings if it is integrated in the whole it could be sent back to you and you task reopened.
Of course if during further development there is a problem with this piece of code that will require a fix that is not part of the original task. For the builder it is the same: if it turns out that the wall is on the wrong place due to an error in the plan or there should have been a extra hole in it (door, window, ...) it must be 'fixed' afterwards.
I'm sorry to brake it to you but evolution IS a fact.
Evolution is the term the scientific community has given to the observation that if you place all fossil evidence in chronological order (btw you don't need radioactive dating for it although this will make it much more accurate) there is a clear ... evolution (it really is the best word for it).
The oldest fossils are smaller, more 'primitive' (simpeler, fewer functions,...) and fewer species.
Then the question is: how come? What is the mechanism that drives this evolution. And that is the theory of evolution. So even if the theory would be proven wrong it would still have to explain what we allready know.
And what do we know? Well a lot: we have discovered the basic mechanism behind evolution: genetics. From this genetic research we have confirmed what fossil records, finds and archeological and paleontologic research already stated: humans stem from other primates (commonly known as 'apes').
Stating that this is only a theory and there is still a residual chance that it is completely wrong is as wrong as stating that gravity does not exist. To be sure: the force of gravity is still a very badly understood part of science. But the fact that gravity exist will not go away by any mistakes we find in the theory of gravity.
I don't think you've spent a lot of time reading arguments by the "Creation science" crowd. I'd hardly call them "anti-rationalist" -- they have their brand of reason. They understand very well the way to put together a logical train of thought. They just don't begin with the same axioms as you do for that logical tree. Hence, they might be "anti-empiricist" to some degree.
I'm sorry but someone looking at the enourmous layers upon layers of deposits in the grand canyon and looking at the tree rings of trees that are more than 6000 years old and then still maintian with a straight face: there is no proof that the earth is more than 6000 years old will never have "a very well put together train of thought" in my eyes.
In the Nye vs Ham debase there was even some kind of astronomer that still said with a straight face that there is no contradiction that the universe is only 6000 years old. While everyone knows that he treats objects (starts, milkyways, supernova's) most of which are much more than 6000 lightyears away Well this is crap.
And now they have the gall of calling it 'science' and 'the best explanation for the origin of life'? I just can't comprehend how this can be allowed.
And before you start with: "but I don't agree with them" etc: You do. Since your statement that their theory is perfectly logical but only starts from 'different axioms' is just what they are saying. Because if that would be the case there would be no reason to teach only the logic based on one set of axioms and not the other. Your statement actually credi
That can't possibly be true, because Technics stopped *making* T12's in 2010!
We (both as scientists and as sane human beings) have a similar feeling when you state that the earth and the whole of the universe is only 6000 years old. It just can't be right.
First define the topics. It is the THEORY of Evolution and the THEORY of Creationism. To declare eother as fact is not science. Science fact is observable, demostratable, repeatable. So since neither can do all 3, they are theories. I see the element of discussion is Faith. Do you believe in random progress, or intelligent design.
It's probably hopeless but I'll try anyway. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. If you look at the fossils and you place them in time you see how they ... evolved (there is no better word for it) from a very simple species to ever more diverse and complex.
Then there is the theory of evolution that tries to explain this observations. If you don't believe the theory you still need (as a scientist) to explain this evolution with a new evolution theory. But the evolution is there and remains there.
And you can say: yes but it was God (or an intelligent designer) that created all this variaty. The problem is: we know the mechanism for all this evolution: genetics.
Through genetic analysis we can find traces of previous species from which we (or any other annimal) has evolved. So now you intelligent designer is reduced to generating a few changes in the genetic material in the course of millions of years. Not an efficent designer and he certainly didn't do much better than introducing random changes.
I am not worried about secularists being converted back to religion.
I think you underestimate what is at stake here. Isn't the background of this debate that creationism is getting serious foothold in science classes in certain partst of the US? This is why Bill referred to the 'viewers' and 'voters'. His message was clear: do you really want this kind of crap to be thought as science in science classes? This is about a generation that will have trouble distinguishing between science and just an opinion that is not based on any facts. And we see this confusion already around us (the global warming debate??)
So I don't see the point in playing it safe.
Well he didn't. He played it very well both tactically as strategically. When you start from the mindset "we have much better agruments as the others" you will communicate this attitude to your audience. Your opponent will use this to point out "look he clings to his oppinion and is deaf for anything else and then he accuses me of exactly that same thing!". In a debate tactics and strategy are very important. You have to understand: a lot of people judge the outcome purely based on the impression they got. Bill gave the impression of having a lot of facts and figures and spoke with a lot of authority. Ham spoke also with a lot of authority when he was citing the Bible, but not when talking about science.
What Bill did was simply pointing out: there is simply too much proof to ignore and your theory is not a theory at all. Its a story without any reasoning behind it.
And as you remarked in your original post: it worked very well. He made a much better impression than Ham.
I am very disappointed because I am an atheist and a science enthusiast,[...] This debate should have taken a philosophical turn towards the question of whether it's reasonable to assume natural laws are constant.
Well the idea that natural laws ar constant is the very basis of science. So if you go into debate about that it becomes (as you state correctly) a philosophical debate. It would appear to the viewer then that believing in the existence of natuaral law is a question of opinion. That it simply is a point of view. And that is exactly what creationists are stating. They say: hey why don't we get the chance to represent our point of view in the classroom? Our ideas are just as valid and scientifically sound.
So then the debate is lost. The only thing you can do as a scientist is to point to all those things are all consistent with natural law and totally inconsistent with the idea that natural law change over time. And then you force your opponent to say things like: "Ok, yes there are more than 6000 year rings in that tree but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's more 6000 years old!".
The people that cannot draw their own conclusion from that they are already convinced creationists and will never be converted anyway. The rest may have something to think about.
Don't get me wrong: I was also a bit frustrated at first but the more I reflect on it the more I think he did an excellent job of not falling in any pitfalls were you end up with a Yes/No discussion (which is a win for creationism as explained above) and at the same time forcing Ham to show his true face: a bible studier that will accept only "evidence" that supports his cause and nothing else.
With regards to the question about the ~6,000 light-year range of light we'd expect to see, the best answers I can personally give is two fold:
1. If we're assuming that 24 hour days are correct, then one could argue that it's no more difficult for God to make photons-in-transit from stars than it would be for Him to create the stars themselves.
I hope you realize that this is the main reason that creationism is not regarded as science. You start from a premise: the earth is only 6000 years old. And if any observation contradicts this premise you resort to the most fantastic and impossible explanations in order to 'salvage' your point of view.
A scientist cannot do that he/she has to find an explanation that matches ALL observations. And assuming somehow whole stars and planets appeared out of nowhere but in a state that suggest actually they were there for billions of years etc. is actually ignoring the observation.
It's not explainging the observation but dismissing it.
Well for me, I also try to avoid android. Not because I have an aversion against google (my enthousiasm since the first gmail account has cooled but has not turned to hatered or anything).
I simply don't seem to find my way around an android device very well.
I have currently a nokia N9 and I could imagine switching to windows phone, but android allways throws me off. No matter how may layers of UI they put on top of it, it never seems to give me an aura of simplicity. My wife has an android based phone. She is regularly puzzeled and muttering things like "why isn't this working". But contrary to me she just carries on and works around it.
Unfortunately, the make and model of the generator itself had little to do with why it melted down. Their maintenance was crap. Their backup systems didn't work. They were too cheap to bury a landfill-style containment unit under the ground. Cheap and poorly run with lies about maintenance and safety = every asian company ever.
Well the fact that they needed constant active cooling (inherent to the design) was the main factor. Without that the accident would not have happened. Remark that they decided to shut down the plant before the tsunami arrived. But even afther a shutdown the plant still needed a constant flow of active cooling.
I never heard anything about poor maintenance. What I did hear in the documentary is that the backup power groups were flooded. So through their placement they were out of the game almost immediatelly. So I don't think the maintanance was a big factor.
I said: "if you are willing..."
A: not enough data: there is an abundant amount of data. If you pooh-pooh it all away, then naturally there is nothing left. But anyone who is willing to look around (visit a glacier, read about polar ice melting, acidisation of the ocians, the 10 warmest year of the last 100 years, etc) can find the evidence.
B: Natural or not it does not make the problem go away. And about this "who do we think we are": read the IPPC FAQ about CO2 increase linked to human activity. How do we know it comes from burning fossil fuel?
"The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon. In addition, the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere has declined as CO2 has increased; this is as expected because oxygen is depleted when fossil fuels are burned. A heavy form of carbon, the carbon-13 isotope, is less abundant in vegetation and in fossil fuels that were formed from past vegetation, and is more abundant in carbon in the oceans and in volcanic or geothermal emissions. The relative amount of the carbon-13 isotope in the atmosphere has been declining, showing that the added carbon comes from fossil fuels and vegetation. Carbon also has a rare radioactive isotope, carbon-14, which is present in atmospheric CO2 but absent in fossil fuels. Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, decreases in the relative amount of carbon-14 showed that fossil fuel carbon was being added to the atmosphere."
C Cost are too high: This will be hard to explain to future generations "Yeah we knew something was wrong but couldn't be bothered to do something about it. You see, how would be still be able to afford a third car?" I'm sure you childeren will be impressed.
Ok you want the correct formulation?
"The total radiative forcing of the Earth’s climate due to increases in the concentrations of the LLGHGs CO2, CH4 and N2O, and very likely the rate of increase in the total forcing due to these gases over the period since 1750, are unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (Figure TS.2). It is very likely that the sustained rate of increase in the combined radiative forcing from these greenhouse gases of about +1 W m–2 over the past four decades is at least six times faster than at any time during the two millennia before the Industrial Era, the period for which ice core data have the required temporal resolution. The radiative forcing due to these LLGHGs has the highest level of confidence of any forcing agent. {2.3, 6.4} " (from the IPPC report)
The rest of us see the chart and say "uh-oh, these two (CO2 and temperature) have been linked together for thousands of years and now we have totally wrecked the curve on one of them. That can't be good."
And you say "maybe it CAN be good". Well, maybe that nigerian guy really IS a rich banker that will pay you back a 1000 fold if you send him all your money... It's worth a try, right?
With the risk of fighting an impossible uphill battle, here goes:
If you still don't know if global warming is 'a thing' you can only blame yourself. There is an abundant amount of material on global warming available: from the most gigourous scientific studies to the most simple and easy to understand explanation for the laymen.
I (as a civil engineer) use the laymen explanation. I'm not so arogant to think that I can redo and improve on a scientific study. For me 'The inconvenient truth' (yes mod me down!) is still the best and most comprehensive. In it are the answer to some of your questions.
Like #1: over 1000 years of temperature records: in the film it is explained that they drill a hole in the artic ice to extract a cilinder of ice. This ice has grown over many centuries and throught the way it has melted the temperature can be derived. At the same time the level of CO2 can be measured too. And here comes the clue: in all those thousands and thousands of years, the CO2 curve and the temperature curve have been closely matched. If you know that the CO2 now is higher than it has ever been since many thousands of years it seems logical to conclude that the temperature will also rise above the 'normal' levels.
#2: Why geological terms? I don't see the relationship with climate. The question is: how will the climate respond to such a dramatic rise in CO2 levels that has never been seen before in such a short period of time? There is nothing to guarantee that the climate will respond on a geological timescale. It could be severely destabelized and respond violently in a mere decade? Maybe it does not. But are you willing to bet your childerens life on it? Aparently yes.
#3: I don't know this study but if it is about creationism I don't understeand the link with climate (except that creationists have the same habit of ignoring common sense if it goes against their 'beliefs')
#4 If you distrust the extrapolation of the CO2/temperature curve use the reasoning that's behind it. More CO2 captures more heat. It's that simple. Why does earth not either heat up until its uninhabitable (too much CO2) or cool down to a dead rock (not enough CO2) because higher temperatures tend to create more life which captures CO2 and more clouds which tend to reflect CO2. "There you are" you will say. "It's a self regulating system, we don't need to do anyting". The answer is yes: it regulates itself but the new equilibrium is not guaranteed to be agreeable for us. Life on earth will continue but it could be that lots of hurricanes, higher temperatures, combined with periods of draught could make life very unconfortable and may result that a total population of 11 billion people cannot be supported anymore...
If a fight broke out in a british cinema, there'd be a punch-up, the police would be called and someone would be spending the night in the cells.
[..]And that's how it tends to work: there are people carrying all around, I guess, but you'd never know it 99.9% of the time (if you're a layperson who wasn't trained to recognize someone carrying), since those people understand what's at stake, take their responsibility seriously, and know that there are laws barring them from even hinting to someone else that they are carrying.
In America you get shot.
This whole story is just weird[...]. But your sort of generalization isn't helpful either, since it overexaggerates an outlier, rather than recognizing that America's gun violence problem has seen a massive decline over the past two decades, one which, ironically, has largely gone unnoticed
Well the decline seems to be less spectacular lately (link) and is also a global trend aparently. Still compared to the UK (to which the GP was refering) it is still more than 10 times higher!
(link)
Maybe not such a strange remark, since both countries are at the oposite side of curve.
Yep. So what you're saying is: you have little money and from that small amount you have to spend a substantial amount on the interest of your loans while your rich counterpart can buy more with the same amount of money because he has a start capital on the bank that allows him to go for the option that requires a larger invesment now but is cheaper in the long run (car without loan that is more economical and that does not break down all the time!)
Of course it is expensive to be poor:
- Good insulation of your house: not possible because it requires a big investment.
- More energy efficient car: too expensive
- Buy a car without an (expensive) loan: nope.
- Get a more energy efficient heating: forget it.
- Replace your washing machine, dryer etc with these new energy efficient (A+ rated) ones: I didn't think so
- Replace all your light bulbs with more efficent LED's that have a longer life time.... well what do you think???
Aparently the texter pressed the "execute" button (it was dark after all...)
Question is: who is going to pay for watching this nuclear waste for the next couple of centuries? The nuclear industry? I would like to hope so, but I'm not at all confident...
I'm more into super creative design. I think all alternative theories should be given equal value!
In a rare surge of honnesty the Discovery Channel reconstruction of the Hudson miracle concedes that a the fact that the pilot had activated the APU meaning that the advance anti stall protection on the A320 was active clearly contributed to the miracle.
At the time of hitting the water the plane whas flying slower and with a higher angle of attack than a human would safely be able to do...
Yes, because shit like draging from / to regions of the screen with no visual cue that such an option is present is a prevalent design clusterfuck.
"Like the draggon
To the regions of the screen
The shit"
My biggest gripe with all these monitoring system is the reasoning behind it: (from the post)
While the breathing and sleeping alerts will calm a lot of parents...
In what I see around me the opposite is true. Woried parrents scramble to these kind of devices and often will have their condition aggrivated even when no real danger exists.
Don't get me wrong: if the docter has flagged you child as having a risk for e.g. crib death these things are a godsent. Problem is that everybody is buying them even when the baby is perfectly normal.
(keeps his microphone in his outstretched arms while he turns around a few times. Why carry a microphone if you're not going to speak into it??!!)