Actually, its always been CO2. There has never been a time when people have primarily talked about methane. You obviously have not been paying any attention whatsoever to the political debate about climate change. It's more potent than CO2, but it is released in much smaller quantities.
I used to love the CS Monitor. Historically, it has been one of the best news sources around. I think the last year or two the quality of reporting has really gone downhill. It always seems dumbed down like they are trying to compete with CNN.
You're confusing regular pollution with CO2. CO2 is not even classed as a pollutant in the US because it isn't harmful to humans or the environment directly. We have reduced emissions quite a bit over the years. Catalytic converters, sulphur scrubbers in coal plants, etc. However, these innovations do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
CO2 is emitted whenever you burn stuff. In developed countries, we actually have cars, so we burn a lot more gas. We also use a lot more electricity, so we burn more coal. Some countries like Indonesia do a lot of slash and burn. It's significant, but nothing close to what power generation and cars do. The major effect from slash and burn is really the loss of the forest CO2 sink.
Actually, the thing with CO2 lagging temperature isn't true per se. It's more that in parts of the paleoclimate record, CO2 is a strong positive feedback that exacerbates Earth's other climate variations. Thus, it looks only looks like it can't be causative because it tends to lag increases in temperature from other sources, while still contributing to warming itself.
Where you see this come up (and I think where this idea started) is that changes in orbital parameters or other factors start the Earth warming (Milankovich cycles don't themselves warm the Earth; the insolation is the same. It increases the severity of northern hemisphere winters and the albedo feedback kickstarts it). The initial cooling causes the oceans to dump CO2 in the atmosphere, and also slows reuptake. The CO2 then enhances the warming.
CO2 itself causes a temperature rise of something like 1.7C per doubling (don't quote me on that), ignoring feedbacks. This can be pretty much pinned down just by knowing how CO2 absorbs infrared. The problem is figuring out the feedbacks (which are definitely positive overall). The consensus is between 3-5C per doubling of CO2. 4.5 might be the most likely value based on what's come out recently with research on cloudiness feedbacks and other areas.
The great majority of the sun's energy that reaches the surface is in visible. That's why we see in visible rather than NIR or ultraviolet, which have pretty much the same optical properties.
The sun is pretty close to being a 5800K blackbody, which means that it emits primarily in visible, but also some UV and near infrared.
However, the UV mostly gets cut off in the stratosphere by ozone (which is why the stratosphere is actually warmer that the upper troposphere). A good portion of the NIR is cut off by water and other stuff.
'Maths' is short for: Mathematical Anti Telharsic Halfatum Septomin
Fantastic book for a fantastic language
on
R In a Nutshell
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This book always sits right on my desk.
R is a language that more people should really learn. The statistics community has definitely gravitated strongly to it. These days, with the thousands of packages on CRAN, it's much superior in functionality compared to other packages like STATA or SAS (I won't even go into people who use matlab for statistics), not to mention open source.
It still is a bit slower than matlab for some matrix operations, but hopefully that will be improved in the future.
That's not true. We are realistically looking at more that a meter by the end of this century. That's not even taking into account high loss/low probability events like a WAIS collapse (such pdf tails factor hugely into the decision theory for climate policy),
I actually work in a climatology group. Statistics is certainly a major part, but modeling and such typically winds up being the meat of what climatologists do. Keep in mind that many statisticians work alongside climatologists.
Marriage is for making babies, and that requires a man, and a woman. Two women can not bear child, neither can two men. And don't try to throw in surrogates or artificial insemination, those are red herring arguments. Marriage is also used to make sure your kids don't end up fucking each other, which tends to result in birth defects, especially in small gene pools. The last purpose of marriage is property rights and inheritence, which just ties right back into the whole children bit.
No. This is an absolutely nonsensical argument. This reasoning has actually been refuted in court rulings. First of all, by your definition, infertile couples should not be able to marry. Also, marriage isn't to keep your kids from screwing each other. That has such a low probability in the first place. How often do you actually hear of that happening despite so many children being born out of wedlock?
Gay couples can raise children (and do so exactly as ably as straight parents) and this requires inheritance rights.
The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.
Put more money into unmanned probes, where the real science is getting done. Keep in mind they cancelled the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter to pump more money into this piece of crap. That probe would have unbelievably expanded our knowledge of the Jovian system. I know sending humans into LEO is super neat and all, but weve been doing it for nearly 50 years.- Theres more useful things that can be done with NASAs very limited budget.
Why would people at NASA be taking this concept seriously if it violated such basic physics? You just don't understand the concept. It's simple! If you have a satellite in GEO, and extend a cable down and up, the cable below will pull down (STRAIGHT down. That's how gravity pulls!) and the cable above will pull up. The net is zero, so the satellite remains in GEO.
Compared to the value of the US dollar against every major currency in 2006, hourly wages for US-based techies are still down 5-10% year over year.
The CPI is a much better measure of the increase in the cost of living. Your idea is only true if you only buy imports. The weakening dollar is actually probably a very good thing for techies, because it will make it more expensive to outsource, and make it cheaper for foreign companies to use US labor.
There are actual real physicists who know lots of math and physics who are almost certain dark matter is non-baryonic matter. All that you have here is a bunch of qualitative pop-sci/sci-fi type arguments held together with very airy logic.
What I want to know is: 1. Does being an actuary get you into a secret club where: 2. Like the masons, there is a top secret upper level that: 3. Is handing down these exams?
There are two "front" clubs for normal people who pass all the exams: The Society of Actuaries and the Casualty Actuarial Society. These are just shadowy front groups for the American Academy of Actuaries. Notice that their logo is the Triforce. That is the Power of The Actuaries. 4. I mean, if being an actuary is so hard 5. Who is qualified to write these tests?
Anybody can write them if you want to cough up the dough to take them. But, for the first exam, you do need to be very good at calculus and probablity.
I'd assumed that farmers actually owned their land and didn't have to pay for it every year. Or is there some massive tax on land? Why tax the land if you're then going to subsidise it?
There is this thing referred to as "opportunity cost" in situations such as these. If I say, own a hundred acre farm whose land is worth 500k, I am forgoing income by farming it rather than selling it. The present value of my farm is the time and risk-discounted income brought in by the crop into perpetuity, which may be less than 500k. And it often is for farms at the edges of suburbia.
So who wants to been seen by a Doctor that has had marginal sleep for 48-96 hours under high stress? This practice seem archic almost like hazing, 'I had to do this we I did my residency so you have to now'.
Is there a reason that Medical School is so much more expensive than other schools? Is it a social barrier to only allow students with money? I am pretty sure a PHD in Astrophysics isn't as expensive as Medical School.
A graduate student in a nonprofessional field is heavily involved in doing research and teaching classes, which benefits the university. That's why they get tuition wavers and stipends. Medical students don't teach or (typically) come up with research, so they've got to pay the full cost. And then there's the fact that your typical MD will make way, way more money than an astrophysics PhD, which allows for better loan opportunities.
[i]Whatever anyone says, String Theory includes some incredibly beautiful mathematics and and has some applications to other branches of physics, so I found it worthy of study.[/i]
Very true. String theory has greatly advanced algebraic geometry on the pure-math side of things as well.
Slashdot Mirror
They have a pretty crazy AGW-denier agenda. Models have long taken into account the effects of plant growth
Actually, its always been CO2. There has never been a time when people have primarily talked about methane. You obviously have not been paying any attention whatsoever to the political debate about climate change. It's more potent than CO2, but it is released in much smaller quantities.
I used to love the CS Monitor. Historically, it has been one of the best news sources around. I think the last year or two the quality of reporting has really gone downhill. It always seems dumbed down like they are trying to compete with CNN.
You're confusing regular pollution with CO2. CO2 is not even classed as a pollutant in the US because it isn't harmful to humans or the environment directly. We have reduced emissions quite a bit over the years. Catalytic converters, sulphur scrubbers in coal plants, etc. However, these innovations do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
CO2 is emitted whenever you burn stuff. In developed countries, we actually have cars, so we burn a lot more gas. We also use a lot more electricity, so we burn more coal. Some countries like Indonesia do a lot of slash and burn. It's significant, but nothing close to what power generation and cars do. The major effect from slash and burn is really the loss of the forest CO2 sink.
Actually, the thing with CO2 lagging temperature isn't true per se. It's more that in parts of the paleoclimate record, CO2 is a strong positive feedback that exacerbates Earth's other climate variations. Thus, it looks only looks like it can't be causative because it tends to lag increases in temperature from other sources, while still contributing to warming itself.
Where you see this come up (and I think where this idea started) is that changes in orbital parameters or other factors start the Earth warming (Milankovich cycles don't themselves warm the Earth; the insolation is the same. It increases the severity of northern hemisphere winters and the albedo feedback kickstarts it). The initial cooling causes the oceans to dump CO2 in the atmosphere, and also slows reuptake. The CO2 then enhances the warming.
CO2 itself causes a temperature rise of something like 1.7C per doubling (don't quote me on that), ignoring feedbacks. This can be pretty much pinned down just by knowing how CO2 absorbs infrared. The problem is figuring out the feedbacks (which are definitely positive overall). The consensus is between 3-5C per doubling of CO2. 4.5 might be the most likely value based on what's come out recently with research on cloudiness feedbacks and other areas.
On this same thread, a large glass of water 20 minutes prior to a meal helps.
The great majority of the sun's energy that reaches the surface is in visible. That's why we see in visible rather than NIR or ultraviolet, which have pretty much the same optical properties.
The sun is pretty close to being a 5800K blackbody, which means that it emits primarily in visible, but also some UV and near infrared.
However, the UV mostly gets cut off in the stratosphere by ozone (which is why the stratosphere is actually warmer that the upper troposphere). A good portion of the NIR is cut off by water and other stuff.
'Maths' is short for:
Mathematical
Anti
Telharsic
Halfatum
Septomin
This book always sits right on my desk.
R is a language that more people should really learn. The statistics community has definitely gravitated strongly to it. These days, with the thousands of packages on CRAN, it's much superior in functionality compared to other packages like STATA or SAS (I won't even go into people who use matlab for statistics), not to mention open source.
It still is a bit slower than matlab for some matrix operations, but hopefully that will be improved in the future.
That's not true. We are realistically looking at more that a meter by the end of this century. That's not even taking into account high loss/low probability events like a WAIS collapse (such pdf tails factor hugely into the decision theory for climate policy),
Would be to not let "Kids" near a PC.
It seems like these games would be excellent at doing exactly that.
I actually work in a climatology group. Statistics is certainly a major part, but modeling and such typically winds up being the meat of what climatologists do. Keep in mind that many statisticians work alongside climatologists.
As a gay guy I can assure you nobody finds him cute.
Marriage is for making babies, and that requires a man, and a woman. Two women can not bear child, neither can two men. And don't try to throw in surrogates or artificial insemination, those are red herring arguments. Marriage is also used to make sure your kids don't end up fucking each other, which tends to result in birth defects, especially in small gene pools. The last purpose of marriage is property rights and inheritence, which just ties right back into the whole children bit.
No. This is an absolutely nonsensical argument. This reasoning has actually been refuted in court rulings. First of all, by your definition, infertile couples should not be able to marry. Also, marriage isn't to keep your kids from screwing each other. That has such a low probability in the first place. How often do you actually hear of that happening despite so many children being born out of wedlock?
Gay couples can raise children (and do so exactly as ably as straight parents) and this requires inheritance rights.
Is there any metric for which Mississippi is not the worst state?
The reason why more scientists arent interested in performing experiments on the ISS is because we know about everything useful there is to know about zero g vacuum a short distance above Earths surface.
Put more money into unmanned probes, where the real science is getting done. Keep in mind they cancelled the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter to pump more money into this piece of crap. That probe would have unbelievably expanded our knowledge of the Jovian system. I know sending humans into LEO is super neat and all, but weve been doing it for nearly 50 years.- Theres more useful things that can be done with NASAs very limited budget.
Why would people at NASA be taking this concept seriously if it violated such basic physics? You just don't understand the concept. It's simple! If you have a satellite in GEO, and extend a cable down and up, the cable below will pull down (STRAIGHT down. That's how gravity pulls!) and the cable above will pull up. The net is zero, so the satellite remains in GEO.
Compared to the value of the US dollar against every major currency in 2006, hourly wages for US-based techies are still down 5-10% year over year.
The CPI is a much better measure of the increase in the cost of living. Your idea is only true if you only buy imports. The weakening dollar is actually probably a very good thing for techies, because it will make it more expensive to outsource, and make it cheaper for foreign companies to use US labor.
There are actual real physicists who know lots of math and physics who are almost certain dark matter is non-baryonic matter. All that you have here is a bunch of qualitative pop-sci/sci-fi type arguments held together with very airy logic.
What I want to know is:
1. Does being an actuary get you into a secret club where:
2. Like the masons, there is a top secret upper level that:
3. Is handing down these exams?
There are two "front" clubs for normal people who pass all the exams: The Society of Actuaries and the Casualty Actuarial Society. These are just shadowy front groups for the American Academy of Actuaries. Notice that their logo is the Triforce. That is the Power of The Actuaries.
4. I mean, if being an actuary is so hard
5. Who is qualified to write these tests?
Anybody can write them if you want to cough up the dough to take them. But, for the first exam, you do need to be very good at calculus and probablity.
It brings in the big bucks if you become an actuary. Those guys often make more than doctors and lawyers.
I'd assumed that farmers actually owned their land and didn't have to pay for it every year. Or is there some massive tax on land? Why tax the land if you're then going to subsidise it?
There is this thing referred to as "opportunity cost" in situations such as these. If I say, own a hundred acre farm whose land is worth 500k, I am forgoing income by farming it rather than selling it. The present value of my farm is the time and risk-discounted income brought in by the crop into perpetuity, which may be less than 500k. And it often is for farms at the edges of suburbia.
Thus, high land prices==farming more expensive
And then you'll have no English teachers.
So the key is to set the math/science teacher's pay high enough above English teacher's pay to ensure an adequate supply of both.
So who wants to been seen by a Doctor that has had marginal sleep for 48-96 hours under high stress? This practice seem archic almost like hazing, 'I had to do this we I did my residency so you have to now'.
Is there a reason that Medical School is so much more expensive than other schools? Is it a social barrier to only allow students with money? I am pretty sure a PHD in Astrophysics isn't as expensive as Medical School.
A graduate student in a nonprofessional field is heavily involved in doing research and teaching classes, which benefits the university. That's why they get tuition wavers and stipends. Medical students don't teach or (typically) come up with research, so they've got to pay the full cost. And then there's the fact that your typical MD will make way, way more money than an astrophysics PhD, which allows for better loan opportunities.
[i]Whatever anyone says, String Theory includes some incredibly beautiful mathematics and and has some applications to other branches of physics, so I found it worthy of study.[/i]
Very true. String theory has greatly advanced algebraic geometry on the pure-math side of things as well.