The energy we think of as heat is actually the kinetic energy of the motion of atoms. So the parts of the copper that are moving faster would have more of the energy than those that are moving slower.
No, a short period of decreased warming does not disprove AGW. Solar output varies, so when solar output is low, we would expect to see decreased warming. Now an extended period (several decades) of little or no warming would disprove AGW. Let me know when that happens.
The comment one screen below (which is the only one I've seen so far that bothers to do the math) shows that the energy the Earth receives from the sun is equivalent to about 16000 tons of mass per year. Granted, it could be wrong, but you're not showing any math that demonstrates that it's wrong.
But not only the atmosphere is heating up. The oceans are warming. The warming is also causing ice to melt into water. And of course upper part of the crust will also heat up because the atmosphere and ocean will heat it. I would think that the total mass that has warmed is several orders of magtitude greater than the mass of the atmosphere.
Most of the mass of your body is actually the binding energy of the quarks and gluons that make up the protons and neutrons of your atoms. Energy is mass. Deal with it.
The energy released from fission is not instaneously released into the atmosphere. The energy goes through the Earth, which will act as a damper to even out fluctuations.
This is why the temperature in caves is relatively constant, at about the average temperature of the temperature outside the cave. Cave temperature does not shoot up during the day or even get much warmer in the summer due to fluctuations in solar radiation because of the damping effect. Science -- it does take the slightest bit of understanding and thought!
Energy is mass. E=mc^2 gives us the conversion factor between energy units (e.g. joules) and mass units (e.g. grams). If an object heats up, it has more energy, and thus more mass. If you want to find out how much more massive, you will need to do some math. You can see some in the posts above that seem to show that there is enough solar energy falling on the Earth each year that if the atmosphere is trapping just slightly more than it is letting be emitted into space, the mass of the Earth will increase by many tons per year.
Under a heavy load of 40 tabs, Safari for Windows uses the least amount of memory (just 725 MB). Firefox comes in second at 910 MB, followed closely by Opera at 925 and Chrome at 995. Microsoft's own IE9 uses the most memory (1.75 GB).
The same reason there are building codes. People would just buy cheap houses that fall down and have all sorts of other hazards otherwise. People are pretty dumb and cheap. We're doing all sorts of other things to reduce energy use, also, including having new standards (laws) for energy efficiency for cars and applicances. We should also update building codes to require more insulation.
I've never looked at standard documents when I write code, and I'm sure the same is true for most other developers. You're just making up excuses to be argumentative. The only people that really need to look at the standards is the people who implement the standard -- these are the people the standards documents are written for.
The most recognized standards are those you need to pay for. When I implemented HDLC, I used the standards documents that my company bought. If companies did not adopt standards because they were too cheap to pay the $300 for the standards documents, you might have a point. Of course, that small amount of money gives a great ROI, so any company that was that cheap would not stay in business for long.
You're not paying for just the production or distribution of the file, book, movie, music, software, or drug when you pay for those things. You're paying for the effort required to make the item in the first place. If it takes someone one year to write a book, they need to recieve much more than the cost of distributing a PDF file to make a living from writing.
I once worked at a company that used exactly one metric for determining employees' bonuses -- company profit. That got everyone to work together to generate more revenue and cut costs. The first year it was in place, everyone in the company got a 25% annual bonus. The downside was that the next year the economy went sour and no one got a bonus.
Without patents, there would be far more trade secrets. Patents make inventions public, not private. That's the whole purpose of patents: to promote the spread of ideas by making them public.
Yes, of course, dismiss any and all evidence I could possibly provide, and provide none of your own. And the choir mods you up. It's classic denialism and groupthink.
Here are the lists for: Chrome which shows zero vulnerabilities, and Firefox, which shows two. Ah, good old cognitive dissonance -- making people ignore evidence that doesn't match their conclusions since the dawn of man.
They have plenty of storage. It's just Darwinists covering up evidence of ID by throwing away the evidence that points to that conclusion. That way the researchers get to keep their jobs that allow them to bilk millions form the government. Oh, wait, this doesn't involve climate change, so I'll be modded down instead of up.
I don't see any "warmists" saying we're all going to die. Things will be unpleasant, and in fact millions may die, but there are always unpleasant things in life and millions die every year anyway. The world will go on even if we keep burning more fossil fuel every year until prices become unaffordable to the masses. It's just that according to the latest and best information we currently have, we can make life better by reducing energy use and ramping up production from energy sources that can last for many thousands of years. I guess that's not too alarmist enough to have a knee-jerk reaction to, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The extra mass is the kinetic energy of the system. Energy is mass.
The energy we think of as heat is actually the kinetic energy of the motion of atoms. So the parts of the copper that are moving faster would have more of the energy than those that are moving slower.
You can look up general relativity and the standard model, both of which have been tested to a high degree of precision.
No, a short period of decreased warming does not disprove AGW. Solar output varies, so when solar output is low, we would expect to see decreased warming. Now an extended period (several decades) of little or no warming would disprove AGW. Let me know when that happens.
The comment one screen below (which is the only one I've seen so far that bothers to do the math) shows that the energy the Earth receives from the sun is equivalent to about 16000 tons of mass per year. Granted, it could be wrong, but you're not showing any math that demonstrates that it's wrong.
But not only the atmosphere is heating up. The oceans are warming. The warming is also causing ice to melt into water. And of course upper part of the crust will also heat up because the atmosphere and ocean will heat it. I would think that the total mass that has warmed is several orders of magtitude greater than the mass of the atmosphere.
Most of the mass of your body is actually the binding energy of the quarks and gluons that make up the protons and neutrons of your atoms. Energy is mass. Deal with it.
The energy released from fission is not instaneously released into the atmosphere. The energy goes through the Earth, which will act as a damper to even out fluctuations.
This is why the temperature in caves is relatively constant, at about the average temperature of the temperature outside the cave. Cave temperature does not shoot up during the day or even get much warmer in the summer due to fluctuations in solar radiation because of the damping effect. Science -- it does take the slightest bit of understanding and thought!
Energy is mass. E=mc^2 gives us the conversion factor between energy units (e.g. joules) and mass units (e.g. grams). If an object heats up, it has more energy, and thus more mass. If you want to find out how much more massive, you will need to do some math. You can see some in the posts above that seem to show that there is enough solar energy falling on the Earth each year that if the atmosphere is trapping just slightly more than it is letting be emitted into space, the mass of the Earth will increase by many tons per year.
The same reason there are building codes. People would just buy cheap houses that fall down and have all sorts of other hazards otherwise. People are pretty dumb and cheap. We're doing all sorts of other things to reduce energy use, also, including having new standards (laws) for energy efficiency for cars and applicances. We should also update building codes to require more insulation.
I've never looked at standard documents when I write code, and I'm sure the same is true for most other developers. You're just making up excuses to be argumentative. The only people that really need to look at the standards is the people who implement the standard -- these are the people the standards documents are written for.
The most recognized standards are those you need to pay for. When I implemented HDLC, I used the standards documents that my company bought. If companies did not adopt standards because they were too cheap to pay the $300 for the standards documents, you might have a point. Of course, that small amount of money gives a great ROI, so any company that was that cheap would not stay in business for long.
Developers don't need to know the standard. Compiler writers need to know the standard.
You're not paying for just the production or distribution of the file, book, movie, music, software, or drug when you pay for those things. You're paying for the effort required to make the item in the first place. If it takes someone one year to write a book, they need to recieve much more than the cost of distributing a PDF file to make a living from writing.
I once worked at a company that used exactly one metric for determining employees' bonuses -- company profit. That got everyone to work together to generate more revenue and cut costs. The first year it was in place, everyone in the company got a 25% annual bonus. The downside was that the next year the economy went sour and no one got a bonus.
Without patents, there would be far more trade secrets. Patents make inventions public, not private. That's the whole purpose of patents: to promote the spread of ideas by making them public.
Yes, of course, dismiss any and all evidence I could possibly provide, and provide none of your own. And the choir mods you up. It's classic denialism and groupthink.
Here are the lists for: Chrome which shows zero vulnerabilities, and Firefox, which shows two. Ah, good old cognitive dissonance -- making people ignore evidence that doesn't match their conclusions since the dawn of man.
I think the folks at SecurityFocus disagree. Although IE 9 is more secure than previous releases, IE still has plenty of vulnerabilities
/squints Can't tell if speech disorder or latest fad.
They have plenty of storage. It's just Darwinists covering up evidence of ID by throwing away the evidence that points to that conclusion. That way the researchers get to keep their jobs that allow them to bilk millions form the government. Oh, wait, this doesn't involve climate change, so I'll be modded down instead of up.
If we ran out of fossil fuels when we ran out of oil, global warming wouldn't be much of a problem. The problem is coal.
I don't see any "warmists" saying we're all going to die. Things will be unpleasant, and in fact millions may die, but there are always unpleasant things in life and millions die every year anyway. The world will go on even if we keep burning more fossil fuel every year until prices become unaffordable to the masses. It's just that according to the latest and best information we currently have, we can make life better by reducing energy use and ramping up production from energy sources that can last for many thousands of years. I guess that's not too alarmist enough to have a knee-jerk reaction to, though.
But having to change is scary! Can't you just tell me a nice, comforting story about how we can all keep burning oil, gas, and coal forever?