This also can fall into the "I'm being discriminated against!" category - not just a contrarian viewpoint, but an outright victim wannabe.
Ever known a minority-classified person (race, gender, whatnot) who is certain that all the travails of their life are specifically because of discrimination? Discrimination can be a legitimate concern, however they use it as a convient all-encompassing excuse for their personal failings.
"I didn't get the job because the hiring manager is a racist." instead of "I didn't get the job because I showed up to the interview late."
Rock the boat! Don't rock the boat, baby... Rock the boat! Don't tip the boat over... Rock the boat! Don't rock the boat, baby... Rock the boooooaaaat!
Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations The atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is difficult to define because it is exchanged with reservoirs having a wide range of turnover times; IPCC 2001, (page 38) gives a range of 5-200 years.
The lifetime of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide (Global Biogeochemical Cycles - American Geophysical Union) If one assumes a terrestrial biosphere with a fertilization flux, then our best estimate is that the single half-life for excess CO2 lies within the range of 19 to 49 years, with a reasonable average being 31 years. If we assume only regrowth, then the average value for the single half-life for excess CO2 increases to 72 years, and if we remove the terrestrial component completely, then it increases further to 92 years.
A 22.5% increase over 2 centuries, 19.4% in 45 years, is a small percentage?
[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.htm ] >> An atmospheric CO2 record for the past 200 years was obtained from the Siple Station ice core. [...] Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration ca. 1750 was 280±5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human factors. >>
[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm ] >> The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. >>
By your own statistics, we will double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 100 years. That is not a negligible point.
CO2 provides the most climate forcing due to its chemical properties and relative bulk in the atmosphere. To forestall the atmospheric H2O canard - H2O is a more powerful GHG, but it only maintains the current temperature. It is not a forcing agent because it cycles too fast. H2O cycles in 14 days. CO2 cycles in ~150 years.
The comment about rain scrubbing is utterly nonsensical. It shows no time component and is irrelevant because rain doesn't fall evenly over every square meter of the planet.
"Run these executables and report what you think about them; sorry, source code."... and the links provided are *not* from the organization being represented.
Did anybody fall for this ploy and actually download and run those executables?
The "fight" never ended. Different groups have different meanings for the same word. When the meanings for the same word are contradictory, then there will fracas when the groups meet. What one group decided long ago is irrelevant to the other.
Here's a novel concept. If you need a word for a new concept, create a new one - either from historical language roots, another modern language, or completely out of your own imagination. To completely change the meaning of an already existing word is weak & simple-minded and/or plainly malicious & devious. It is equivalent to forcibly, and without cause, evicting a concept from its word. It is malicious to claim "we control this word now, you'll need to find a new word for the original meaning now."
Just because a guy is sucking on a fag doesn't mean he is gay. After all, he may be stressed out and unhappy about something - which is the reason he smoking a cigarette.
Freedom of speech does not remove the consequences of action from the speaker. Purposeful inaction is still an action.
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the results of the elections. It's like blaming the mechanic for your car breaking down because "you just didn't have the time" to see to the proper maintenance of your car.
Your 1st Amendment rights are still intact though. You can still whine about the state of the Nation. Your fellow citizens who did vote can also tell you to "STFU you apathetic hypocrite. You had your chance and did nothing."
You got modded 'troll' for proposing an obvious & inflammatory end solution without giving any options for achieving said goal. (pfft... details...)
"The world's problems would be easily solvable with 10% of the current population."
A) Kill 90% of the current population.
-- 1) release a "Capt. Tripps" virus that indiscriminitely kills -- 2) institute a pogrom that pales all previous genocides and only the "unworthy" are killed
B) Reversibly sterilize all of humanity while instituting compulsory euthanasia upon reaching a certain age - i.e. retirement or earlier. Lottery winners receive the ability to have a child through in vitro fertilization; no multiple conception is allowed. After about 4 generations (~80 years), the world's population should be down to approx. 10% of its current size.
Ever heard of the cure being worse than the disease?
It's hilarious balancing "we want immigrants to become productive members of society" against "those [legal] immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans".
This is why I called your argument absurd. It is not name-calling. I purposefully stayed away from calling you an idiot or any other epithet. The argument is absurd.
Absurd: utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue
"A truly random infinite series of a 10 element set cannot possibly contain every finite series because if you transformed the 10 element set into a 2 element set, a subset of the 10 element set, then it won't contain every element of the 10 element set. Therefore, not every finite series exists in a random infinite series."
That is an absurd statement. Thinking that statment is 'insightful' is muddle-minded.
The statement "All finite series [of the set used by the infinite series] will appear in an infinite random series." cannot be refuted by saying "If all 7's are removed from that series, then there will be no 7's in it. Therefore, not all finite series will appear in an infinite series." It is an *absurd* statement.
Slashdot Mirror
That is most assuredly not offtopic. It is relevant to the parent post and the article in general.
This also can fall into the "I'm being discriminated against!" category - not just a contrarian viewpoint, but an outright victim wannabe.
Ever known a minority-classified person (race, gender, whatnot) who is certain that all the travails of their life are specifically because of discrimination? Discrimination can be a legitimate concern, however they use it as a convient all-encompassing excuse for their personal failings.
"I didn't get the job because the hiring manager is a racist." instead of "I didn't get the job because I showed up to the interview late."
Say hello to my little friend.
Price Comparison Table
Buy.com has it for $2 cheaper than Amazon.
Rock the boat!
Don't rock the boat, baby...
Rock the boat!
Don't tip the boat over...
Rock the boat!
Don't rock the boat, baby...
Rock the boooooaaaat!
... only if you're using a computer at an institution that paid for a site license.
The rest of us can either pay $30 for the single article, or $200 for a one year subscription.
Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
The atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is difficult to define because it is exchanged with reservoirs having a wide range of turnover times; IPCC 2001, (page 38) gives a range of 5-200 years.
The lifetime of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide (Global Biogeochemical Cycles - American Geophysical Union)
If one assumes a terrestrial biosphere with a fertilization flux, then our best estimate is that the single half-life for excess CO2 lies within the range of 19 to 49 years, with a reasonable average being 31 years. If we assume only regrowth, then the average value for the single half-life for excess CO2 increases to 72 years, and if we remove the terrestrial component completely, then it increases further to 92 years.
Read your own cite.
P ress_Releases/story.php?id=292. stm
"Finally, Joughin says that two nearby West Antarctic glaciers are thinning rapidly, so the trend cannot be extended across the continent."
A regional trend does not disprove a global trend.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4315968
Try looking at the whole picture rather than cherry picking and denying reality.
Wow... Lack of comprehension for the win.
If there is a percentage increase essentially because of human factors, then that is the percentage of the whole that humanity is responsible for.
"a small increase in the percentage" isn't even a valid concept in this discussion.
Correct.
Now...
What happens when the temperature increases because of humanity's CO2 emissions?
There is big difference between "this is a potential issue that needs more research" and journalists sensationalizing out their wazoo in popular rags.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
A 22.5% increase over 2 centuries, 19.4% in 45 years, is a small percentage?
[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.htm ]
>>
An atmospheric CO2 record for the past 200 years was obtained from the
Siple Station ice core.
[...]
Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration
ca. 1750 was 280±5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it
increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human
factors.
>>
[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm ]
>>
The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual
concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry
air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004.
>>
By your own statistics, we will double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 100 years. That is not a negligible point.
CO2 provides the most climate forcing due to its chemical properties and relative bulk in the atmosphere. To forestall the atmospheric H2O canard - H2O is a more powerful GHG, but it only maintains the current temperature. It is not a forcing agent because it cycles too fast. H2O cycles in 14 days. CO2 cycles in ~150 years.
The comment about rain scrubbing is utterly nonsensical. It shows no time component and is irrelevant because rain doesn't fall evenly over every square meter of the planet.
"Run these executables and report what you think about them; sorry, source code." ... and the links provided are *not* from the organization being represented.
Did anybody fall for this ploy and actually download and run those executables?
The US soldier fatality percentage is the same for the current Iraq War as for the entire WW2.
a rchives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001747 .htmlr bat.htm
WW2 (5 years)
American soldiers
16,113,000 serving
292,000 battle deaths
1.8% dead
Operation Iraqi Freedom (3 1/2 years and counting)
American soldiers
133,000 deployed
2,461 hostile deaths
1.8% dead
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_o
http://icasualties.org/oif/
The "fight" never ended. Different groups have different meanings for the same word. When the meanings for the same word are contradictory, then there will fracas when the groups meet. What one group decided long ago is irrelevant to the other.
Here's a novel concept. If you need a word for a new concept, create a new one - either from historical language roots, another modern language, or completely out of your own imagination. To completely change the meaning of an already existing word is weak & simple-minded and/or plainly malicious & devious. It is equivalent to forcibly, and without cause, evicting a concept from its word. It is malicious to claim "we control this word now, you'll need to find a new word for the original meaning now."
Just because a guy is sucking on a fag doesn't mean he is gay. After all, he may be stressed out and unhappy about something - which is the reason he smoking a cigarette.
There is a major difference between not voting and your candidate losing the election.
You should try brushing up on your reading comprehension. How does "I voted for the other guy" equate to "I didn't vote"?
Freedom of speech does not remove the consequences of action from the speaker. Purposeful inaction is still an action.
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about the results of the elections. It's like blaming the mechanic for your car breaking down because "you just didn't have the time" to see to the proper maintenance of your car.
Your 1st Amendment rights are still intact though. You can still whine about the state of the Nation. Your fellow citizens who did vote can also tell you to "STFU you apathetic hypocrite. You had your chance and did nothing."
Just over one half (56%), and steadily decreasing.
source: Military Times Media Group survey
Support the Troops, Oppose the Policy
Veterans Against The Iraq War
You got modded 'troll' for proposing an obvious & inflammatory end solution without giving any options for achieving said goal. (pfft... details...)
"The world's problems would be easily solvable with 10% of the current population."
A) Kill 90% of the current population.
-- 1) release a "Capt. Tripps" virus that indiscriminitely kills
-- 2) institute a pogrom that pales all previous genocides and only the "unworthy" are killed
B) Reversibly sterilize all of humanity while instituting compulsory euthanasia upon reaching a certain age - i.e. retirement or earlier. Lottery winners receive the ability to have a child through in vitro fertilization; no multiple conception is allowed. After about 4 generations (~80 years), the world's population should be down to approx. 10% of its current size.
Ever heard of the cure being worse than the disease?
Steve525 already named off two monoculture disasters. To complete the set, remember the Blight - the 1840's Irish potato famine.
So from all your examples of cloned plants, we conclude that cloned animals are a good thing?
It's hilarious balancing "we want immigrants to become productive members of society" against "those [legal] immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans".
Why would it be on slashdot, or any other social news site, then?
This is why I called your argument absurd. It is not name-calling. I purposefully stayed away from calling you an idiot or any other epithet. The argument is absurd.
Absurd: utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue
"A truly random infinite series of a 10 element set cannot possibly contain every finite series because if you transformed the 10 element set into a 2 element set, a subset of the 10 element set, then it won't contain every element of the 10 element set. Therefore, not every finite series exists in a random infinite series."
That is an absurd statement. Thinking that statment is 'insightful' is muddle-minded.
The statement "All finite series [of the set used by the infinite series] will appear in an infinite random series." cannot be refuted by saying "If all 7's are removed from that series, then there will be no 7's in it. Therefore, not all finite series will appear in an infinite series." It is an *absurd* statement.
"I can prove that an infinite series of a set does not contain any finite series of the same set by pointing to elements not in the set."
That is an absurd comment. It is just as ridiculous as the AC above who said that you wouldn't find a '3' in an infinite series of 1's & 0's.
The people modding you both up as "insightful" have the same muddled mindset. It isn't insightful. It's patently absurd.
An infinite series of a set must contain any finite series of that set, by simple definition.
Yes. That was it. I was vacillating between him and Poul Anderson.
Wall Around a Star, the second book in the Saga of Cuckoo series.
Thank you.