I don't deny the Earth has shown some slight warming, warming which brings us nowhere near the levels that Earth has successfully endured in the past. I have concerns with CO2 being named as the scapegoat. I take issue with models being called science. Models are part of the hypothesis. Every other field of science requires a testable, and repeatable experiments. It's what makes science great, because it can weed out free energy nuts that power their cars with cold fusion and water. Evolution, for a long time, really was a hypothesis that fit the facts. It needed DNA to tie it all together and really put the last nail in the Creationist coffin. It appears that climate science is exempt from this requirement (a test of what the model concludes) before calling conclusions facts. The problem with the Warmers is that when a question is asked, the debate that follows is usually just a bunch of name calling. Two things separate science from religion. Science assumes a lack of knowledge or that the knowledge we currently have is incorrect. Religion assumes it is right. Science wants to be challenged by anyone, where religion demands it be challenged by no one. When you deny anyone's right to ask "why?", then you are spewing dogma.
CO2 is rising, no doubt about that. My issue is that it only makes up about.04% of the atmosphere. Venus and Mars both have vastly higher amounts of CO2 compared to us (~95%). One planet is scorching hot, and the other is very cold (with some tolerably warm spots for our future explorers). Venus is fairly convincingly attributed to the Greenhouse Effect. Mars has an atmospheric CO2 content that by volume and mass is greater than Earths. Why is Mars not hot? Why does the greenhouse effect not slip out of control there? The odds of IR radiation striking a CO2 molecule on the way up on Earth is extremely small. If this weren't true, IR pictures of fields and cities would be blurred by the scattering caused by CO2. Increasing CO2 from.04% to.05% still keeps those odds extremely small. If it is absorbed, the CO2 with kick out a another IR photon, the whole idea of the Greenhouse Effect. To anything in the atmosphere, most directions lead to space. For me to accept a model, it must apply to Mars and Venus equally, without modifying constants. Yes that means the must account for all the variations, from deflection from our magnetic field of higher energy particles to atmospheric density to distance from the Sun. Without these factors, people are taking variables and assuming constants out of them. If you take a model for Earth and plug in all the same factors for Mars or any other planet into it, but are stuck with "we don't have that variable in this model" then your model is incomplete and inaccurate. That model should work anywhere, like all other physics does. If you want to convince me you've pegged the source of a less than %1 difference in temperature, then you better account for all these variables much wider than %1 difference.
The Sun is the primary sources of heat on Earth, far outpacing every other source. Are there any direct recordings (not by tree ring proxy) of variations in luminosity over the same period of time? We are kept warm by it at 150 million kilometers away. Think of the vast amount of energy that has to be releasing to do that. Even slight variations would affect us. The Earth is a very good black body, like the other planets. By the math for black body radiation, the Earth is emitting around 10% more heat that it gets from the Sun, due to geothermal heat.
I am seriously concerned that real ecological issues like pollution and conservation of resources have been hijacked by the invisible, marketable demon of CO2.
You do realize how funny this statement is after sitting through the last president, right? The media bashed the shit out of anyone dissenting from Bush right up till the last election, especially concerning the Iraq war. Everything about that war has been a total farce, but anyone pointing it out was raked over the coals for it. And giving money to buddies? Is it any different than awarding overpriced no-bid contracts to his buddies? The more I see of Obama, the more he's just Bush wearing a mask.
So long as some big oil monster doesn't come up and choke a guy, the oil spill, the ecosystem it's destroying, the 11 people that died on the rig, and the billions of dollars this will cost to fix are small potatoes, right? It's simple assault, who cares? You make it sound like he got the CIA to hack their account numbers and embezzle vast sums of money. Screw it, your moral code is different than, well, most everyone's.
Maybe because Bush has far better ties to oil than Obama? Maybe because the dikes that failed were built by Army Corps of Engineers, employed by the US government? Maybe because there all there was to do with Katrina is to clean it up (It's not like the hurricane hovered there for months on end)? What do you want him to do, swim down 5000 feet and plug the hole with his huge biceps? If Bush were in office we'd probably be invading Great Britain right now.
There are plenty of studies that all say the same thing. Yes, more CO2 does have a positive effect on plant growth. Quite conveniently, it is most pronounced when you also increase the temperature.
I've been wondering how warm oil is coming out of ground. Surely the oil coming out from such deep depths and with all the friction from the sand it carries along the way, the oil should be pretty hot.
By waving this battery shaped object randomly around a person while is makes a soothing whirring noise your bluetooth enabled phone can give instant readings raging from various forms of neural degradation, radiation poisoning, and space parasite infections.
The Oort cloud is a lot of minuscule particles of ices of different forms (not all water ice). If it were everywhere we'd surely notice this rather thick nebula permeating the universe. We wouldn't see Andromeda much less take the Hubble Deep Field.
This isn't entirely true. The crowd must believe they are fit for the punishment. During the French Revolution, beheadings by the new, supposedly more humane, guillotine were common. The condemned were to act dignified in their final walk, men and women alike. Finally, a noblewoman, who had been known to charitable was being brought to be executed. Instead of acting dignified she screamed, fought and cried the whole way there. The crowds were normally like a party but this time it was different. It started changing the opinions of the executions and they soon stopped.
Stop and think about yourself pointing a gun at someone standing quiet and motionless and another hunched over crying about how they don't want to die. Which is easier to kill?
I have no problem with people believing they may have a soul and may go to some other place when they die. Science can't really explore that. When a belief becomes religion I think it is bad. Religions are nothing more that another government with their own laws and punishments and taxes.
I'm sorry it offends you to be told "God is the antithesis of discovery", but your comparison isn't related whatsoever. Realize that every single scientific discovery, everything you understand about the natural world, was previously explained by God. Someone who wants to know more says "I don't know."
Newton was also known for his work in alchemy. He enjoyed his share of share of toxins (like mercury). Don't get me wrong, Newton was sheer brilliance. I'm able to be taught calculus, but to make that leap intuitively is absolutely amazing. That doesn't mean he wasn't damaged.
I saw a video by Neil deGrasse Tyson called "God of the Gaps", highly recommended. He points out that even the most incredibly brilliant people invoke God add the edge of their intelligence. For Newton, he managed to come out with incredible breakthroughs in motion, energy, gravitation, and math. But when Newton couldn't mathematically balance the "6 planets" in stable orbits, he decides it must be God. He quits trying to understand and explore it after that, as do a great many intelligent people in history. The disturbing thing is that it means that that once "God" is accepted as an answer, they are either unable or unwilling to explore that subject further. God is the antithesis of discovery.
I'm surprised that scene stuck with other people too. So much of it is missing.I've seen the 2000 version far more. Kynes's didn't really come off as threatening the Spacing Guild member. Paul's drowning story is gone.
I didn't entirely like their thoughts being narrated in Lynch's, but we're missing a huge chunk of the story without it. The movies makes it seem like Paul becomes omniscient. I loved his explanation of how he saw the possible futures, and that seeing the possible future was the easy part, seeing the past from the future to see what decisions to make was hard. They barely touch on the idea that he can't see other prescient people or those close to them.
I think a longer miniseries is about the only way to encompass the book properly.
Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy version
Wierding modules? The stillsuits in Lynch's didn't even cover their head. The "plot within a plot within a plot", as Herbert put it, is totally missing from 1984 version.
Herbert seemed to make everything a plot. Neither movie really mentions that their religion is a centuries old plot by the Bene Gesserit to allow the Quisatz Hadderach to gain power when they are successful with their breeding program, which backfired on them.
Yeah, but 300 people having personal knowledge of the case? Did he kill her on stage? Sounds to me like someone clawing for anything to get out of doing his time.
It's probably because I come from a blue collar family and have always had that kind of job. But, most of the Harley owners that you see riding around aren't dentists or accountants. I doubt most of them could handle much of the Sturgis crowd.
You're making the assumption that we aren't programmed to die off. Cancer could easily just be another way our genes make sure we don't live to long and homogenize our species' genome too much.
This is usually the thought that kills a lot of games. I love being able to upgrade and change and improve a character. But, as soon as I realize I'm just working toward another level the pointlessness is the seed of boredom that kills a game for me.
While I have absolutely no proof, the guy describes the smell as metallic, reminding him of an arc welder. Not only does an arc welder make ozone (UV emission, they'll sunburn and blind you), so would the gasses trapped and frozen in the fabric of his spacesuit being hit by UV. The guy is smelling it as it thaws and is collected in the air lock. It's exactly as he describes it, kind of metallic almost a fresh air smell.
I think the problem with carbon sequestration is that most of the schemes don't pass a sense check. Perhaps if someone were to present a detailed proposal about how it works, I might buy it. However, all of the proposals I've read don't make any sense.
Examples:
Bury the CO2 - Why won't it leak back up to the surface?
Bury Plant Matter - Why not burn the plants instead of coal?
Convert CO2 into some other chemical, and bury that - The laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you.
Bury the CO2. For example, recycled paper takes more energy to make than the original wood paper. And let's face it, the recycled stuff isn't as good or it would come that way the first time. The USs paper all comes from tree farms. Bury the paper and you bury the carbon and grow another tree. Granted, nothing we do will make a bit of difference, but it will make people feel better.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't deny the Earth has shown some slight warming, warming which brings us nowhere near the levels that Earth has successfully endured in the past. I have concerns with CO2 being named as the scapegoat. I take issue with models being called science. Models are part of the hypothesis. Every other field of science requires a testable, and repeatable experiments. It's what makes science great, because it can weed out free energy nuts that power their cars with cold fusion and water. Evolution, for a long time, really was a hypothesis that fit the facts. It needed DNA to tie it all together and really put the last nail in the Creationist coffin. It appears that climate science is exempt from this requirement (a test of what the model concludes) before calling conclusions facts. The problem with the Warmers is that when a question is asked, the debate that follows is usually just a bunch of name calling. Two things separate science from religion. Science assumes a lack of knowledge or that the knowledge we currently have is incorrect. Religion assumes it is right. Science wants to be challenged by anyone, where religion demands it be challenged by no one. When you deny anyone's right to ask "why?", then you are spewing dogma.
CO2 is rising, no doubt about that. My issue is that it only makes up about .04% of the atmosphere. Venus and Mars both have vastly higher amounts of CO2 compared to us (~95%). One planet is scorching hot, and the other is very cold (with some tolerably warm spots for our future explorers). Venus is fairly convincingly attributed to the Greenhouse Effect. Mars has an atmospheric CO2 content that by volume and mass is greater than Earths. Why is Mars not hot? Why does the greenhouse effect not slip out of control there? The odds of IR radiation striking a CO2 molecule on the way up on Earth is extremely small. If this weren't true, IR pictures of fields and cities would be blurred by the scattering caused by CO2. Increasing CO2 from .04% to .05% still keeps those odds extremely small. If it is absorbed, the CO2 with kick out a another IR photon, the whole idea of the Greenhouse Effect. To anything in the atmosphere, most directions lead to space. For me to accept a model, it must apply to Mars and Venus equally, without modifying constants. Yes that means the must account for all the variations, from deflection from our magnetic field of higher energy particles to atmospheric density to distance from the Sun. Without these factors, people are taking variables and assuming constants out of them. If you take a model for Earth and plug in all the same factors for Mars or any other planet into it, but are stuck with "we don't have that variable in this model" then your model is incomplete and inaccurate. That model should work anywhere, like all other physics does. If you want to convince me you've pegged the source of a less than %1 difference in temperature, then you better account for all these variables much wider than %1 difference.
The Sun is the primary sources of heat on Earth, far outpacing every other source. Are there any direct recordings (not by tree ring proxy) of variations in luminosity over the same period of time? We are kept warm by it at 150 million kilometers away. Think of the vast amount of energy that has to be releasing to do that. Even slight variations would affect us. The Earth is a very good black body, like the other planets. By the math for black body radiation, the Earth is emitting around 10% more heat that it gets from the Sun, due to geothermal heat.
I am seriously concerned that real ecological issues like pollution and conservation of resources have been hijacked by the invisible, marketable demon of CO2.
You do realize how funny this statement is after sitting through the last president, right? The media bashed the shit out of anyone dissenting from Bush right up till the last election, especially concerning the Iraq war. Everything about that war has been a total farce, but anyone pointing it out was raked over the coals for it. And giving money to buddies? Is it any different than awarding overpriced no-bid contracts to his buddies? The more I see of Obama, the more he's just Bush wearing a mask.
So long as some big oil monster doesn't come up and choke a guy, the oil spill, the ecosystem it's destroying, the 11 people that died on the rig, and the billions of dollars this will cost to fix are small potatoes, right? It's simple assault, who cares? You make it sound like he got the CIA to hack their account numbers and embezzle vast sums of money. Screw it, your moral code is different than, well, most everyone's.
Maybe because Bush has far better ties to oil than Obama? Maybe because the dikes that failed were built by Army Corps of Engineers, employed by the US government? Maybe because there all there was to do with Katrina is to clean it up (It's not like the hurricane hovered there for months on end)? What do you want him to do, swim down 5000 feet and plug the hole with his huge biceps? If Bush were in office we'd probably be invading Great Britain right now.
Not all plants react the same way .
There are plenty of studies that all say the same thing. Yes, more CO2 does have a positive effect on plant growth. Quite conveniently, it is most pronounced when you also increase the temperature.
I've been wondering how warm oil is coming out of ground. Surely the oil coming out from such deep depths and with all the friction from the sand it carries along the way, the oil should be pretty hot.
Blame Kane and build more harvesters.
By waving this battery shaped object randomly around a person while is makes a soothing whirring noise your bluetooth enabled phone can give instant readings raging from various forms of neural degradation, radiation poisoning, and space parasite infections.
//Tricorder not as far away as we think.
The Oort cloud is a lot of minuscule particles of ices of different forms (not all water ice). If it were everywhere we'd surely notice this rather thick nebula permeating the universe. We wouldn't see Andromeda much less take the Hubble Deep Field.
This isn't entirely true. The crowd must believe they are fit for the punishment. During the French Revolution, beheadings by the new, supposedly more humane, guillotine were common. The condemned were to act dignified in their final walk, men and women alike. Finally, a noblewoman, who had been known to charitable was being brought to be executed. Instead of acting dignified she screamed, fought and cried the whole way there. The crowds were normally like a party but this time it was different. It started changing the opinions of the executions and they soon stopped.
Stop and think about yourself pointing a gun at someone standing quiet and motionless and another hunched over crying about how they don't want to die. Which is easier to kill?
No, he probably understands the importance of discovery or else he wouldn't have revealed this one. We don't want him to release them post-mortem.
I have no problem with people believing they may have a soul and may go to some other place when they die. Science can't really explore that. When a belief becomes religion I think it is bad. Religions are nothing more that another government with their own laws and punishments and taxes.
I'm sorry it offends you to be told "God is the antithesis of discovery", but your comparison isn't related whatsoever. Realize that every single scientific discovery, everything you understand about the natural world, was previously explained by God. Someone who wants to know more says "I don't know."
Newton was also known for his work in alchemy. He enjoyed his share of share of toxins (like mercury). Don't get me wrong, Newton was sheer brilliance. I'm able to be taught calculus, but to make that leap intuitively is absolutely amazing. That doesn't mean he wasn't damaged.
I saw a video by Neil deGrasse Tyson called "God of the Gaps", highly recommended. He points out that even the most incredibly brilliant people invoke God add the edge of their intelligence. For Newton, he managed to come out with incredible breakthroughs in motion, energy, gravitation, and math. But when Newton couldn't mathematically balance the "6 planets" in stable orbits, he decides it must be God. He quits trying to understand and explore it after that, as do a great many intelligent people in history. The disturbing thing is that it means that that once "God" is accepted as an answer, they are either unable or unwilling to explore that subject further. God is the antithesis of discovery.
I'm surprised that scene stuck with other people too. So much of it is missing.I've seen the 2000 version far more. Kynes's didn't really come off as threatening the Spacing Guild member. Paul's drowning story is gone.
I didn't entirely like their thoughts being narrated in Lynch's, but we're missing a huge chunk of the story without it. The movies makes it seem like Paul becomes omniscient. I loved his explanation of how he saw the possible futures, and that seeing the possible future was the easy part, seeing the past from the future to see what decisions to make was hard. They barely touch on the idea that he can't see other prescient people or those close to them.
I think a longer miniseries is about the only way to encompass the book properly.
Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy version
Wierding modules? The stillsuits in Lynch's didn't even cover their head. The "plot within a plot within a plot", as Herbert put it, is totally missing from 1984 version.
Herbert seemed to make everything a plot. Neither movie really mentions that their religion is a centuries old plot by the Bene Gesserit to allow the Quisatz Hadderach to gain power when they are successful with their breeding program, which backfired on them.
I didn't catch that, I was listening for Voyager 1.
Yeah, but 300 people having personal knowledge of the case? Did he kill her on stage? Sounds to me like someone clawing for anything to get out of doing his time.
It's probably because I come from a blue collar family and have always had that kind of job. But, most of the Harley owners that you see riding around aren't dentists or accountants. I doubt most of them could handle much of the Sturgis crowd.
You're making the assumption that we aren't programmed to die off. Cancer could easily just be another way our genes make sure we don't live to long and homogenize our species' genome too much.
This is usually the thought that kills a lot of games. I love being able to upgrade and change and improve a character. But, as soon as I realize I'm just working toward another level the pointlessness is the seed of boredom that kills a game for me.
While I have absolutely no proof, the guy describes the smell as metallic, reminding him of an arc welder. Not only does an arc welder make ozone (UV emission, they'll sunburn and blind you), so would the gasses trapped and frozen in the fabric of his spacesuit being hit by UV. The guy is smelling it as it thaws and is collected in the air lock. It's exactly as he describes it, kind of metallic almost a fresh air smell.
See Carbon sequestration
I think the problem with carbon sequestration is that most of the schemes don't pass a sense check. Perhaps if someone were to present a detailed proposal about how it works, I might buy it. However, all of the proposals I've read don't make any sense.
Examples:
Bury the CO2 - Why won't it leak back up to the surface?
Bury Plant Matter - Why not burn the plants instead of coal?
Convert CO2 into some other chemical, and bury that - The laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you.
Bury the CO2. For example, recycled paper takes more energy to make than the original wood paper. And let's face it, the recycled stuff isn't as good or it would come that way the first time. The USs paper all comes from tree farms. Bury the paper and you bury the carbon and grow another tree. Granted, nothing we do will make a bit of difference, but it will make people feel better.
The Sun does not work by convection.