One wonders if the leftists are breathing on the sensors
If anyone were really wondering, they'd take your own CO2 measurements. Go to a remote area, sample some air in a few bottles, send them to different labs for analysis, and publish the results.
The fact that nobody has done this shows that either a) nobody is really wondering but they just wanted to create some FUD, or b) the results agreed with NOAA's.
Higher temperature results in more CO2 (after some delay), higher CO2 results in higher temperature (with much shorter delay). On a long term graph, you only see the first effect clearly.
More importantly, it's a sampling site in the middle of the ocean, far away from human influences. When the wind is coming from the ocean, it is very clean. When the wind is coming from the direction of an active volcanic vent, they throw out the data.
Of course, anybody who's in doubt could take a sample of air at a location of their own choice, and send it to a lab for CO2 analysis.
There were a few, including the one that created the moon that would not be survivable by any digging.
That was a small planet, and it's gone now.
There are a whole host of other disasters that could take out a one planet humanity.
There are at least 100 times as many that can take out a fragile settlement on Mars, so by building such a place, you've increased the odds of humanity's survival by 1%. It's not worth the trouble.
Build a couple, spread out over the earth. Keep in mind that small mammals were able to survive the previous huge impact by digging a hole in the ground with their paws. I'm sure we can do better than that.
If someone can build an underground city on Mars, they surely can bring a nuke.
But even so, a Mars city is never going to be 100% self sustaining. At some point in time, they're going to run out of something essential that needs to come from earth.
So, instead of years of slow science, we'd have a few decades of prep work, spend a trillion dollars, and then do all the science in half a day. Not sure we would have gained anything.
Yes and no. I'd argue it depends on how you define "programming". If you're talking about "can code up basic solutions to relatively straightforward problems" then yes, with enough time, most people can probably learn to do that.
Even then, a talented person will need less time to learn the basic stuff, whereas others may spend a lifetime mastering it. In the meantime, the talented programmer can do complicated stuff that the untalented one simple can't manage, even with all the training in the world.
If talent didn't play a role, that means that a chimp could do it, given enough training. Clearly that's not the case, even if you train 1000 chimps from the time they are born.
I've seen walking dead, and if that show is any guide for zombie behaviour and properties, it would seem to me that the military would have no problem taking them all out in a few days, and restore order.
Slashdot Mirror
No - you can say that if you simply observe ANY measure of temperature rise over the last two decades. CO2 has skyrocketed - temperature did not
Temperature is still following the same rising trend. Nothing has changed in the last two decades.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Yes, but the people deciding today will be long dead by then.
Depends. What do I get when I win ? And who will be the referee ?
One wonders if the leftists are breathing on the sensors
If anyone were really wondering, they'd take your own CO2 measurements. Go to a remote area, sample some air in a few bottles, send them to different labs for analysis, and publish the results.
The fact that nobody has done this shows that either a) nobody is really wondering but they just wanted to create some FUD, or b) the results agreed with NOAA's.
You would be willing to bet that a bunch of experts who have been doing this for 50 years missed things that you find obvious ?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Higher temperature results in more CO2 (after some delay), higher CO2 results in higher temperature (with much shorter delay). On a long term graph, you only see the first effect clearly.
Wow, so /. is going to post monthly updates to CO2 but not monthly updates on the 18 years and 5 months of flat temperatures?
Check for yourself. The temperatures for the last 18 years are still around the same rising trend line as before.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
More importantly, it's a sampling site in the middle of the ocean, far away from human influences. When the wind is coming from the ocean, it is very clean. When the wind is coming from the direction of an active volcanic vent, they throw out the data.
Of course, anybody who's in doubt could take a sample of air at a location of their own choice, and send it to a lab for CO2 analysis.
but we can see from the last 20 years that a massive increase in CO2 does not bring with it an equivalent increase in temperature
That's because it takes the temperature some time to catch up. There's a lot of water in the oceans.
CO2 levels below 400 ppm is relatively close to the level at which plants can not survive.
CO2 has been in the 200-275 ppm range for the last million years, and plants did fine.
Perhaps this "plant" could extract the oxygen component which would solve our problem with increased CO2.
The CO2 problem is too big to be solved by plants, especially since the viable space would be competing for bigger economic interests.
There were a few, including the one that created the moon that would not be survivable by any digging.
That was a small planet, and it's gone now.
There are a whole host of other disasters that could take out a one planet humanity.
There are at least 100 times as many that can take out a fragile settlement on Mars, so by building such a place, you've increased the odds of humanity's survival by 1%. It's not worth the trouble.
Build a couple, spread out over the earth. Keep in mind that small mammals were able to survive the previous huge impact by digging a hole in the ground with their paws. I'm sure we can do better than that.
Not sure. Try sticking a fork() in it.
There was no HURD at the time, and people got tired of waiting.
Build an underground shelter, with sufficient supplies to last until the dust settles. Much cheaper, and much higher chance of survival.
If someone can build an underground city on Mars, they surely can bring a nuke.
But even so, a Mars city is never going to be 100% self sustaining. At some point in time, they're going to run out of something essential that needs to come from earth.
What's the point of going to Mars and then live underground ? You can dig a hole right here, if you want.
Build the city on earth instead. Breathable atmosphere, easy resupply missions, plenty of water.
How do they know who's calling them over the phone? Anyone can say "I'm the patient, tell me".
If the caller explains there's a "Test code 105" on the bill, they can explain what that number means without going into patient details.
The least they could do is explain what the codes on the bill mean. I assume "test code 105" is a generic code, and not tied to a particular patient.
Depends. When you make the appointment, you tell them how bad it is, and based on that, you get an early or later appointment.
So, instead of years of slow science, we'd have a few decades of prep work, spend a trillion dollars, and then do all the science in half a day. Not sure we would have gained anything.
Yes and no. I'd argue it depends on how you define "programming". If you're talking about "can code up basic solutions to relatively straightforward problems" then yes, with enough time, most people can probably learn to do that.
Even then, a talented person will need less time to learn the basic stuff, whereas others may spend a lifetime mastering it. In the meantime, the talented programmer can do complicated stuff that the untalented one simple can't manage, even with all the training in the world.
If talent didn't play a role, that means that a chimp could do it, given enough training. Clearly that's not the case, even if you train 1000 chimps from the time they are born.
Imagine that you are a zombie apocalypse survivor
I've seen walking dead, and if that show is any guide for zombie behaviour and properties, it would seem to me that the military would have no problem taking them all out in a few days, and restore order.