Annoyingly enough you are correct. Exercise is a good way of getting fit, but not a particularly effective way of losing weight. I have recently been losing 1 kg a week (for 2 months) mainly because I have had a jaw reconstruction and basically have to eat slowly, and due to some other treatment food doesn't taste that great, so I tend to get bored before I finish a plateful.
Again you guys are making some mythical denialists up. Straw men as I believe they are known.
All figures from memory:
Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. For some reason the natural feedback in the carbon cycle responds with a time constant longer than 150 years, which is quite odd in itself. As a result 60% of CO2 from FF burned in the last 150 years is still in the atmosphere.
Adding CO2 to Earth's atmosphere will, on balance, increase the global surface average temperature.
So, so far I'm a lukewarm warmist.
But, the CO2 effect used in the models has to be massively overemphasised to match the historical temperature record. The claim is that much of this represent positive feedbacks associated with water, which according to NASA is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect, as clouds, albedo, and vapor.
It seems to me that any model that uses calibration factors of the order of 200% is not really modelling the system properly. Until we can model clouds and albedo properly we won't have a predictive ability that is robust.
So call me a computer model skeptic. (My day job is in the field of non linear time based modelling, and statistics).
I'm afraid my answer is that more data is required, the current models are shite for predictive purposes.
"there is no climate change" - I wonder how many deniers or skeptics argue that?- only a tiny %age at a guess. I'd say the evidence for climate change since the last Ice Age indicates that non-anthropogenic GW one of the stronger puzzles that needs to be worked on, even if Mann and Smith are trying to downplay the variability seen.
Joel Slatis, founder of Timesheets.com " “If you fill out a paper timecard and write down 8 a.m. when you come in at 8:02, no one is going to bat an eye. But if you do that when you leave too, that means you’re getting 5 minutes more a day. After a year, that’s a few days more vacation.”"
So, if I start at 757 and finish at 1702 every day then can I have a couple more days vacation? In the people's republic of Australia we do this, they are called rostered days off, basically we work 5% extra time for 19 days of the 4 weeks, and take the 20th off.
And since vietnam how many air to air gun kills has the USAF had? The number is approximately zero, yet every jet ends up carrying a gun because of the stupid logic you have spouted.
The main commercial source of hydrogen at the moment is by catalysis from hydrocarbons, thereby pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't think Vodafone has got the foggiest with this line of reasoning.
Um, no. The cells were 23% efficient, which is not exceptional, and the batteries had an energy density of 243W h kg1, which again is scarcely cutting edge.
I think this project demonstrates maturity in the technologies used, not progress as such.
Actually that's some nice numbers, roughly 2.5 doublings of CO2 content, and a 3 degree C temperature rise, give about 1.2 deg C per doubling, in line with the 1.0 deg C per doubling you'd actually expect from CO2's measured properties, and a far cry from the IPCC publicised figures of 2-4.5 generated from GCMs of dubious accuracy.
So what does this tell us? The feedbacks are NOT strong, and not very positive.
So, with a climate sensitivity of 1.2 we can look forward to a slightly warmer climate for the next couple of centuries, which as the IPCC agrees, will be good for humankind. Good news if you like people, bad news if you are trying to impose a global government or whatever the climate crybabies want.
Mod this up please, one thing most people forget is to order enough stock materials. You can buy a bucket of electronic components for 10 bucks, no one person would bother, but that is a terrific resource for just mucking about. Similarly for strip board you can buy it for absolute peanuts in bulk. Having enough stock that you can afford to make mistakes is very helpful, i routinely buy 5 when I need 2.
"think-outside-the-box equipment/materials did you have"
No, you need the conventional tools that have been developed over the centuries, augmented by whatever 21st century stuff you want. But a hammer and a saw and a drill and a chisel will be far more use than most things that plug into a computer. having said that, you might buy a big box of Arduino clones and see what people do with them. They cost about as much as a nut and a bolt. (seriously, I just paid $2.80 for a nut and a bolt, the same as an Arduino Mini)
The solutions should be outside the box, do you really think you can invent or even need a better hammer?
Trouble is you need very large tanks of water, or to seperate them a long way. For instance a house might use 2 kWh overnight, that's about 7 MJ.
Round trip efficiency for pumped hydro system is around 88%, call it 100, and call g 10. So you need a tower or hill 350m high with 2 tons of water in it, or if you prefer, a swimming pool, 2*5*10m suspended 6 metres above your current pool. So, that's a fair bit of unlikely, just to power one house.
Most sensible big hydro locations have already been gobbled up, they made sense decades ago.
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.
For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands
FTFA "A comparative risk assessment of drugs including alcohol and tobacco using the margin of exposure (MOE) approach was conducted. The MOE is defined as ratio between toxicological threshold (benchmark dose) and estimated human intake....The benchmark dose values ranged...to 531mg/kg bodyweight for alcohol (ethanol)"
So that's 1/2 a g per kg, or say 50g for me. A bottle of wine masses 750g, and at 13% would contain 97.5 g of alcohol
So according to this paper if I drink half a bottle of wine without excreting I am in danger of toxicological thresshold
matlab programmer here. $130k+super+6 weeks leave +18 sick days per year. So, as dead ends go, not too shabby
In parts of the automotive world matlab is used for algorithm development (for example for image recognition for anti collision systems) which can then be automagically cross compiled for the target embedded processor.
Fuck me dead. I have to read 90% of the comments on a thread on a technology site to get to this post.. Yes exactly. Mobile phones will be ubiquitous, so automatic translators will be ubiquitous.
Slashdot Mirror
Annoyingly enough you are correct. Exercise is a good way of getting fit, but not a particularly effective way of losing weight. I have recently been losing 1 kg a week (for 2 months) mainly because I have had a jaw reconstruction and basically have to eat slowly, and due to some other treatment food doesn't taste that great, so I tend to get bored before I finish a plateful.
Again you guys are making some mythical denialists up. Straw men as I believe they are known.
All figures from memory:
Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. For some reason the natural feedback in the carbon cycle responds with a time constant longer than 150 years, which is quite odd in itself. As a result 60% of CO2 from FF burned in the last 150 years is still in the atmosphere.
Adding CO2 to Earth's atmosphere will, on balance, increase the global surface average temperature.
So, so far I'm a lukewarm warmist.
But, the CO2 effect used in the models has to be massively overemphasised to match the historical temperature record. The claim is that much of this represent positive feedbacks associated with water, which according to NASA is responsible for 80% of the greenhouse effect, as clouds, albedo, and vapor.
It seems to me that any model that uses calibration factors of the order of 200% is not really modelling the system properly. Until we can model clouds and albedo properly we won't have a predictive ability that is robust.
So call me a computer model skeptic. (My day job is in the field of non linear time based modelling, and statistics).
I'm afraid my answer is that more data is required, the current models are shite for predictive purposes.
"there is no climate change" - I wonder how many deniers or skeptics argue that?- only a tiny %age at a guess. I'd say the evidence for climate change since the last Ice Age indicates that non-anthropogenic GW one of the stronger puzzles that needs to be worked on, even if Mann and Smith are trying to downplay the variability seen.
Joel Slatis, founder of Timesheets.com " “If you fill out a paper timecard and write down 8 a.m. when you come in at 8:02, no one is going to bat an eye. But if you do that when you leave too, that means you’re getting 5 minutes more a day. After a year, that’s a few days more vacation.”"
So, if I start at 757 and finish at 1702 every day then can I have a couple more days vacation? In the people's republic of Australia we do this, they are called rostered days off, basically we work 5% extra time for 19 days of the 4 weeks, and take the 20th off.
And since vietnam how many air to air gun kills has the USAF had? The number is approximately zero, yet every jet ends up carrying a gun because of the stupid logic you have spouted.
The main commercial source of hydrogen at the moment is by catalysis from hydrocarbons, thereby pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't think Vodafone has got the foggiest with this line of reasoning.
A flight lasting one solid year seems a bit of a well kept secret, got a cite for that?
Um, no. The cells were 23% efficient, which is not exceptional, and the batteries had an energy density of 243W h kg1, which again is scarcely cutting edge.
I think this project demonstrates maturity in the technologies used, not progress as such.
...unless it was deliferate.
Obvious use is as a radar servo, maybe could be used to drive hydraulics electrically,
Item number one on on my bucket list
When I'm 59 I'll hunt you down and kill you. Fair enough?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025232...
Actually that's some nice numbers, roughly 2.5 doublings of CO2 content, and a 3 degree C temperature rise, give about 1.2 deg C per doubling, in line with the 1.0 deg C per doubling you'd actually expect from CO2's measured properties, and a far cry from the IPCC publicised figures of 2-4.5 generated from GCMs of dubious accuracy.
So what does this tell us? The feedbacks are NOT strong, and not very positive.
So, with a climate sensitivity of 1.2 we can look forward to a slightly warmer climate for the next couple of centuries, which as the IPCC agrees, will be good for humankind. Good news if you like people, bad news if you are trying to impose a global government or whatever the climate crybabies want.
Mod this up please, one thing most people forget is to order enough stock materials. You can buy a bucket of electronic components for 10 bucks, no one person would bother, but that is a terrific resource for just mucking about. Similarly for strip board you can buy it for absolute peanuts in bulk. Having enough stock that you can afford to make mistakes is very helpful, i routinely buy 5 when I need 2.
"think-outside-the-box equipment/materials did you have"
No, you need the conventional tools that have been developed over the centuries, augmented by whatever 21st century stuff you want. But a hammer and a saw and a drill and a chisel will be far more use than most things that plug into a computer. having said that, you might buy a big box of Arduino clones and see what people do with them. They cost about as much as a nut and a bolt. (seriously, I just paid $2.80 for a nut and a bolt, the same as an Arduino Mini)
The solutions should be outside the box, do you really think you can invent or even need a better hammer?
Trouble is you need very large tanks of water, or to seperate them a long way. For instance a house might use 2 kWh overnight, that's about 7 MJ.
Round trip efficiency for pumped hydro system is around 88%, call it 100, and call g 10. So you need a tower or hill 350m high with 2 tons of water in it, or if you prefer, a swimming pool, 2*5*10m suspended 6 metres above your current pool. So, that's a fair bit of unlikely, just to power one house.
Most sensible big hydro locations have already been gobbled up, they made sense decades ago.
The title of the episode is : We export idiots
sadly, we don't have enough spaceships
Intellectually dishonest??
A post that quotes a real life physicists analysis of the problem?
Hive mind indeed.
Hal Lewis’ Letter Resigning His Membership in APS
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.
For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands
OK, thanks, make that 2/3 of a bottle then. Still isn't LD50 within any definable experimental period. It's still alarmist nonsense
FTFA "A comparative risk assessment of drugs including alcohol and tobacco using the margin of exposure (MOE) approach was conducted. The MOE is defined as ratio between toxicological threshold (benchmark dose) and estimated human intake ....The benchmark dose values ranged ...to 531mg/kg bodyweight for alcohol (ethanol)"
So that's 1/2 a g per kg, or say 50g for me. A bottle of wine masses 750g, and at 13% would contain 97.5 g of alcohol
So according to this paper if I drink half a bottle of wine without excreting I am in danger of toxicological thresshold
Alarmist nonsense.
matlab programmer here. $130k+super+6 weeks leave +18 sick days per year. So, as dead ends go, not too shabby
In parts of the automotive world matlab is used for algorithm development (for example for image recognition for anti collision systems) which can then be automagically cross compiled for the target embedded processor.
matlab programmer here. $130k+super+6 weeks leave +18 sick days per year.
Not a terrible gig.
Fuck me dead. I have to read 90% of the comments on a thread on a technology site to get to this post.. Yes exactly. Mobile phones will be ubiquitous, so automatic translators will be ubiquitous.
yes, that was pretty much my reaction. Pretty clueless article if you ask me. Which you didn't.