What's with spergy computer nerds and libertarianism? I guess it must be appealing to reduce the complexity and unavoidable ambiguity of human society into just a couple of quasi-moral rules pulled out of nowhere.
Nah. There's plenty of talented people applying to med school. As an example, medical school applicants who get in through affirmative action have no worse outcomes that other medical students, despite having generally lower grades. Thus, the supply of doctors can be increased without compromising quality.
The real problem is that the AMA has not put in a new medical school for over 30 years, despite the population doubling in that time. They want to keep the supply low to artificially inflate physician salaries.
Only acceleration matters. F=MA. You go 100 km/hr in cars and 900 km/hr in airplanes, but that doesn't cause you problems, does it? We're spinning around the earth going 1000 miles per hour, going around the sun at miles per second, and hurtling around the center of the galaxy even faster. There's no preferred reference frame in physics, so there's no such thing as absolute speed.
The risk was greater than normal, but still small. Earthquake swarms like occured in L'Aquila happen all the time. Instead of being 1 in 100000 or so like normal, it was 1 in 200 or so. Still small. Do you think the town should be evacuated 200 times for every earthquake? That's an impossibility. I think the scientists could have communicated that there was some risk better, but suggesting evacuation is ridiculous.
Do you know who is actually to blame? The local councils for non-existent enforcement of building codes. Most of the deaths were caused by shoddily constructed buildings collapsing. Some of them had structural concrete mixed heavily with sand.
This sort of malicious prosecution has a chilling effect on scientists. Now fearing prosecution, scientists will be unwilling to study seismic hazards in Italy. Heck, they're getting rid of several of their best right here. I don't know what the deal is with the Italian judicial system, but it's out of control.
Rick Santorum has systematically tried to stigmatize and discriminate against an entire minority group by opposing all forms of recognition of same sex relationships, opposing anti-housing and employment discrimination legislation, hate crime legislation, etc., etc.
Lindzen is an interesting fellow. Brilliant man, but a habitual contrarian. He actually does not deny the existence of AGW, but instead thinks that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than usually reckoned. He also thinks that smoking does not cause lung cancer.
He is the only credible anti-AGW person that isn't a quack and/or funded by oil companies.
At least in my field, putting out a figure that is obviously from Excel is a huge faux paus. Doesn't mean a lot of people don't do it, though. Especially the respected but crusty oldsters who can get away with it.
Yeah, this is such a ridiculous idea. If there was actual fission going on, it would have run out of fuel long, long ago. The earth's geothermal heat escaping from the surface is (more or less) about 20% heat from formation, 80% heat from radioactive decay. U-238 has a half life of 2 billion years or so, providing a nice explanation.
This guy sounds like a real crackpot. He suggested that variations in the uranium core's output could be responsible for ice ages, etc. Geothermal heat is on the order of mW*m-2, not enough to effect climate. Besides, for the heat to get to the surface, it has to convect through the mantle and then conduct through the lithosphere, so any variations could only affect surface geothermal output on timescales of hundreds of millions of years. Maybe million years with mantle plumes/hotspots.
There's no plausible mechanism for magma currents to influence climate. It's like saying ocean currents in Europa affect Earth's climate. Climate models do a decent job of simulating climate (benchmarked against past climate) and are getting more sophisticated all the time. It's not hocus pocus, they are based on physical laws. If something has a negligible effect on energy balance, it probably does not affect climate.
It's different psychologically. There's been quite a bit of research on this. The person you are having a conversation senses the traffic himself and also picks up on subconscious cues to slow down or stop the conversation. It winds up being no more or in some circumstances less dangerous than being alone.
Cell phone usage while driving is equally dangerous handed or hands free.
The parts of the Atacama that get less than a millimeter are by the ocean. Counterintuitively, the closer you get to the sea, the drier it is. This snowfall happened in the Dry Andes of Bolivia and Chile, which are very dry, but do receive more regular precip. For example, there are glaciers above 6000m (it basically never gets above freezing there, so it's sublimation balancing precip).
This is a big snowfall, but it's not that bizarre of an event. AGW is happening, but it would be disingenuous to attribute this to climate change.
Re:Dramatic effect and scientific precision
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 1
You realize that a 64 ounce soda is the equivalent of 53 packets of sugar? Eat that much sugar and tell me you don't get sick.
I don't know about Yellowstone in particular, but there are some tentative plans to exploit Newberry Crater (another shield volcano caldera, but much smaller). Interestingly, the same types of magnetotelluric techniques are being used to map promising sites for geothermal plants.
The geomagnetic field probably doesn't go to zero between reversals. It's thought to basically get really screwed up with quadropole and higher moments dominating. But yeah, especially with out atmosphere, I don't think the lack of a field is as bad as some people think. The atmosphere would do a pretty good job of protecting us.
8 million decades is 80 million years dum-dum. 10^6*10=10^7 (a decade is 10 years). Observe that a billion years is 10^9.
It's probably not back that far, but almost certainly millions of years (from when the continents weren't where they are now, causing the climate to be different) and certainly we have the highest CO2 in 400,000 years. If you look at a graph of CO2, there are characteristic undulations corresponding to glacial periods and interglacials (CO2 is a strong positive feedback with Milankovich cycles), with a sharp spike starting at the industrial revolution.
One notable big event about 42 MYA if I recall right was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. A large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere caused a large spike in temperature. Interestingly, the rate of CO2 release then was vastly slower than what we are doing currently.
However, it's completely academic whether this current climate change is unprecendented or not. What matters is that it can be very damaging and we are causing it, and can prevent further damage if we want.
In the last couple of decades inner cities have become pretty nice for the most par. Most major citiesl have clean, low crime cores nowadays due to redevelopment and the fact that people don't like to drive an hour or more to get to work or anywhere with more culture than a Supercuts in a stripmall. Of course, that goes along with high rent. Where I am (Seattle) it's the suburbs that are trashy and have crime problems. I can certainly walk out my door at any time of night (and I often do) with no problems.
You obviously have no idea what Keynsianism actually is.
Your whole example is a strawman. First of all, when the poor person spends $300, the majority of that will stay in the US. We have a trade deficit, but it's nothing close to what you cited. The poor person also is likely to spend the money on more basic items that aren't imported. Also, it's not like the amazing virtuous rich person is going to invest that money all in the US. From our experience over the last few years, he/she is just as likely to use it to set up a factory in China. It can work either way.
The fact is supply side economics has been shown to be absolute bunk. Very few economists espouse it these days. Fiscal stimulus increases demand in a very measurable way. While it isn't a cure-all, it is a potent tool to ease recessions.
It actually doesn't matter than much when applying to grad schools, as long as you are going to a decent research school as opposed to Central Burplefuck State. Undergraduate research and recommendations are much more more important. Of course, for the recommendations it helps if they are from researchers in the field you are in.
Pedigree is more important after your PhD, but it is based on the quality of the program versus the school as a whole. I turned down Yale to go to a state school that is more highly ranked in my field. Yale was even offering me a higher stipend.
There is actually some research showing that female relatives of male gays tend to have more children. It's also been shown that the chances of becoming gay increase with the number of older brothers. Becoming gay may have a genetic component but it looks to me like it has more to do with conditions in the womb. There is a "gay uncle" hypothesis that there is an advantage to having non-procreating males when there are a lot of kids running around.
This is a much better summary. Also, the OP misquotes the 2X CO2 value as 1.64. The study found 1.94C, and a decrease of 0.6 compared to the model without the feedback. Even 2.6 is on the low end. With some recent work on cloud feedbacks, 4C is more likely.
Slashdot Mirror
What's with spergy computer nerds and libertarianism? I guess it must be appealing to reduce the complexity and unavoidable ambiguity of human society into just a couple of quasi-moral rules pulled out of nowhere.
Nah. There's plenty of talented people applying to med school. As an example, medical school applicants who get in through affirmative action have no worse outcomes that other medical students, despite having generally lower grades. Thus, the supply of doctors can be increased without compromising quality.
The real problem is that the AMA has not put in a new medical school for over 30 years, despite the population doubling in that time. They want to keep the supply low to artificially inflate physician salaries.
Only acceleration matters. F=MA. You go 100 km/hr in cars and 900 km/hr in airplanes, but that doesn't cause you problems, does it? We're spinning around the earth going 1000 miles per hour, going around the sun at miles per second, and hurtling around the center of the galaxy even faster. There's no preferred reference frame in physics, so there's no such thing as absolute speed.
The risk was greater than normal, but still small. Earthquake swarms like occured in L'Aquila happen all the time. Instead of being 1 in 100000 or so like normal, it was 1 in 200 or so. Still small. Do you think the town should be evacuated 200 times for every earthquake? That's an impossibility. I think the scientists could have communicated that there was some risk better, but suggesting evacuation is ridiculous.
Do you know who is actually to blame? The local councils for non-existent enforcement of building codes. Most of the deaths were caused by shoddily constructed buildings collapsing. Some of them had structural concrete mixed heavily with sand.
This sort of malicious prosecution has a chilling effect on scientists. Now fearing prosecution, scientists will be unwilling to study seismic hazards in Italy. Heck, they're getting rid of several of their best right here. I don't know what the deal is with the Italian judicial system, but it's out of control.
Rick Santorum has systematically tried to stigmatize and discriminate against an entire minority group by opposing all forms of recognition of same sex relationships, opposing anti-housing and employment discrimination legislation, hate crime legislation, etc., etc.
Dan Savage made a poop joke about him.
Different magnitudes of bullying, I'd say.
Lindzen is an interesting fellow. Brilliant man, but a habitual contrarian. He actually does not deny the existence of AGW, but instead thinks that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than usually reckoned. He also thinks that smoking does not cause lung cancer.
He is the only credible anti-AGW person that isn't a quack and/or funded by oil companies.
At least in my field, putting out a figure that is obviously from Excel is a huge faux paus. Doesn't mean a lot of people don't do it, though. Especially the respected but crusty oldsters who can get away with it.
Yeah, this is such a ridiculous idea. If there was actual fission going on, it would have run out of fuel long, long ago. The earth's geothermal heat escaping from the surface is (more or less) about 20% heat from formation, 80% heat from radioactive decay. U-238 has a half life of 2 billion years or so, providing a nice explanation.
This guy sounds like a real crackpot. He suggested that variations in the uranium core's output could be responsible for ice ages, etc. Geothermal heat is on the order of mW*m-2, not enough to effect climate. Besides, for the heat to get to the surface, it has to convect through the mantle and then conduct through the lithosphere, so any variations could only affect surface geothermal output on timescales of hundreds of millions of years. Maybe million years with mantle plumes/hotspots.
There's no plausible mechanism for magma currents to influence climate. It's like saying ocean currents in Europa affect Earth's climate. Climate models do a decent job of simulating climate (benchmarked against past climate) and are getting more sophisticated all the time. It's not hocus pocus, they are based on physical laws. If something has a negligible effect on energy balance, it probably does not affect climate.
It's different psychologically. There's been quite a bit of research on this. The person you are having a conversation senses the traffic himself and also picks up on subconscious cues to slow down or stop the conversation. It winds up being no more or in some circumstances less dangerous than being alone.
Cell phone usage while driving is equally dangerous handed or hands free.
That's special relativity, not general. General is a whole different ballgame.
The parts of the Atacama that get less than a millimeter are by the ocean. Counterintuitively, the closer you get to the sea, the drier it is. This snowfall happened in the Dry Andes of Bolivia and Chile, which are very dry, but do receive more regular precip. For example, there are glaciers above 6000m (it basically never gets above freezing there, so it's sublimation balancing precip).
This is a big snowfall, but it's not that bizarre of an event. AGW is happening, but it would be disingenuous to attribute this to climate change.
You realize that a 64 ounce soda is the equivalent of 53 packets of sugar? Eat that much sugar and tell me you don't get sick.
I don't know about Yellowstone in particular, but there are some tentative plans to exploit Newberry Crater (another shield volcano caldera, but much smaller). Interestingly, the same types of magnetotelluric techniques are being used to map promising sites for geothermal plants.
The geomagnetic field probably doesn't go to zero between reversals. It's thought to basically get really screwed up with quadropole and higher moments dominating. But yeah, especially with out atmosphere, I don't think the lack of a field is as bad as some people think. The atmosphere would do a pretty good job of protecting us.
8 million decades is 80 million years dum-dum. 10^6*10=10^7 (a decade is 10 years). Observe that a billion years is 10^9.
It's probably not back that far, but almost certainly millions of years (from when the continents weren't where they are now, causing the climate to be different) and certainly we have the highest CO2 in 400,000 years. If you look at a graph of CO2, there are characteristic undulations corresponding to glacial periods and interglacials (CO2 is a strong positive feedback with Milankovich cycles), with a sharp spike starting at the industrial revolution.
One notable big event about 42 MYA if I recall right was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. A large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere caused a large spike in temperature. Interestingly, the rate of CO2 release then was vastly slower than what we are doing currently.
However, it's completely academic whether this current climate change is unprecendented or not. What matters is that it can be very damaging and we are causing it, and can prevent further damage if we want.
In the last couple of decades inner cities have become pretty nice for the most par. Most major citiesl have clean, low crime cores nowadays due to redevelopment and the fact that people don't like to drive an hour or more to get to work or anywhere with more culture than a Supercuts in a stripmall. Of course, that goes along with high rent. Where I am (Seattle) it's the suburbs that are trashy and have crime problems. I can certainly walk out my door at any time of night (and I often do) with no problems.
You obviously have no idea what Keynsianism actually is.
Your whole example is a strawman. First of all, when the poor person spends $300, the majority of that will stay in the US. We have a trade deficit, but it's nothing close to what you cited. The poor person also is likely to spend the money on more basic items that aren't imported. Also, it's not like the amazing virtuous rich person is going to invest that money all in the US. From our experience over the last few years, he/she is just as likely to use it to set up a factory in China. It can work either way.
The fact is supply side economics has been shown to be absolute bunk. Very few economists espouse it these days. Fiscal stimulus increases demand in a very measurable way. While it isn't a cure-all, it is a potent tool to ease recessions.
If you're staying it academia, it's the name of your advisor that's important. Big shot researchers do tend to be at research 1 schools, of course.
It actually doesn't matter than much when applying to grad schools, as long as you are going to a decent research school as opposed to Central Burplefuck State. Undergraduate research and recommendations are much more more important. Of course, for the recommendations it helps if they are from researchers in the field you are in.
Pedigree is more important after your PhD, but it is based on the quality of the program versus the school as a whole. I turned down Yale to go to a state school that is more highly ranked in my field. Yale was even offering me a higher stipend.
There's a superfluous unit, though. money*time/time=money. It's 40% more a week, a day, a decade.
There is actually some research showing that female relatives of male gays tend to have more children. It's also been shown that the chances of becoming gay increase with the number of older brothers. Becoming gay may have a genetic component but it looks to me like it has more to do with conditions in the womb. There is a "gay uncle" hypothesis that there is an advantage to having non-procreating males when there are a lot of kids running around.
Obviously, but the Reg have a track record about reporting on papers in completely dishonest and misrepresentative ways.
I think that's what I meant (they have a denialist viewpoint). But yeah, they are wingnuts and commonly completely misrepresent research like this.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208085145.htm
This is a much better summary. Also, the OP misquotes the 2X CO2 value as 1.64. The study found 1.94C, and a decrease of 0.6 compared to the model without the feedback. Even 2.6 is on the low end. With some recent work on cloud feedbacks, 4C is more likely.