You live in privileged land of informed people then. Most people I talk to still think that astronomy and astrology are indistinguishable, never mind the feedback effect of water vapor concentration.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.148E18 kg. The mass of 100 million barrels of oil is (roughly) 140 kg (actually ranges from 125 to 154 kg, I just used the median of those two). The amount of carbon dioxide produced from burning that is (again, roughly, assuming an average of 19.9 metric tonnes per TJ, gives 12E-2 metric tonnes CO2 per barrel of oil. By 100 million barrels is 1.2 E7 metric tonnes of CO2, or 1E-10% increase by mass per diem.
Now assuming 100 million barrels per day over the last 50 years, i.e. 18,250 days (an overestimate of past consumption obviously) this gives 2.2E11 metric tonnes cumulative released, or 50E-6% increase by mass.
As CO2 is roughly 1.5 times the mass of N2 and O2, this comes to a concentration increase of 33 parts per million (roughly).
Now, was that much harder than your childish vitriol and namecalling?
Granted, I used a number of gross simplifying assumptions, (spherical cow type stuff), but I left out all sorts of other potential sources besides your 100 million barrels. Deforestation, coal, etc. Moreover, compared to ice cores from 1832, we see a 100 ppm increase in CO2 levels, roughly 3 times my estimate, and since 1960 the rise has been about 70 ppm (double my rough estimate).
What this suggests, as was your point but without any of your extraneous namecalling, is that at a minimum a significant portion of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activities. I've done nothing here that wasn't done much more thoroughly by actual climate scientists.
Now tell me, wouldn't you have been better served posting something like the above, rather than acting like a troll? Have I made my point yet, or shall I browbeat you some a second time?
There, I added, twisted, quoted out you out of context. Next, you can go crawl back into you hole and die, hopefully do so in an extremely painful way. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have to figure out a plan to deal with your old, daily commutes in your Ford Excursion
Go to your room and do not come out until you act like an adult.
Seriously, are you that emotionally vested that you need to wish a painful death on someone who doesn't come to the same conclusion as you (for whatever reason).
You sound like Ann Coulter wishing death by terrorism on John Edwards.
Mature forests DO NOT absorb any net CO2 or output any net 02. Deforestation of old growth forests (like the Amazon) does output CO2, mostly due to burning of biomass and gas release from the disturbed soil. Not from the absence of the trees themselves however (put another way, if the trees were magically teleported away from an old growth forest this would not increase the CO2 in the atmostphere. If anything, it would decrease it because new trees would grow on the vacant land, absorbing more CO2).
Moreover, you are making handwaving statements without any data to back it up, e.g. your claims that deforestation contributes more to CO2 emissions than energy production (which I'm too lazy to dig up references on right now).
Incidentally, the objective measure of "best" is that it leaves the greatest amount of time and resources in the hands of the programmers and users at the end of the day. i.e. economic efficiency.
I disagree. That is AN objective measure of "best." It is not the only objective criteria that can be used however.
Then your faith was weak. The whole idea of faith is believing without evidence, even in the presence of contrary evidence. Hence the saying 'Have faith that...' Just because your faith was WEAK doesn't change the definition of the word.
It doesn't matter what they meant, they were making up numbers for the sake of arguments. Problem is, most arguments are pretty weak when you pull them out of your ass.
You'd have to either do pills, or caffeine syrup. You can't physically drink enough coffee (or virtually energy drink) quickly enough to OD on caffeine. Unless you're willing to die of a ruptured bladder first.
Those photos are such a load of crap. Spiders have a drastically different neurological physiology from ours. They're not organized the same way, they don't have the same antagonist receptors, nor do the receptors do the same thing.
I think your sig warrants everything you post being moderated +1 insightful. Which really only means that someone needs to mod this post -1 Depressing As All Hell.
Which is a very good reason for teachers not to give out their phone numbers. Or addresses. Also, it's happened before (students putting porn on a teacher's computer).
Slashdot Mirror
You live in privileged land of informed people then. Most people I talk to still think that astronomy and astrology are indistinguishable, never mind the feedback effect of water vapor concentration.
Sans supporting evidence for your second premise your conclusion does not follow. Exchange 'might' for will, and I could concur.
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.148E18 kg. The mass of 100 million barrels of oil is (roughly) 140 kg (actually ranges from 125 to 154 kg, I just used the median of those two). The amount of carbon dioxide produced from burning that is (again, roughly, assuming an average of 19.9 metric tonnes per TJ, gives 12E-2 metric tonnes CO2 per barrel of oil. By 100 million barrels is 1.2 E7 metric tonnes of CO2, or 1E-10% increase by mass per diem.
Now assuming 100 million barrels per day over the last 50 years, i.e. 18,250 days (an overestimate of past consumption obviously) this gives 2.2E11 metric tonnes cumulative released, or 50E-6% increase by mass.
As CO2 is roughly 1.5 times the mass of N2 and O2, this comes to a concentration increase of 33 parts per million (roughly).
Now, was that much harder than your childish vitriol and namecalling?
Granted, I used a number of gross simplifying assumptions, (spherical cow type stuff), but I left out all sorts of other potential sources besides your 100 million barrels. Deforestation, coal, etc. Moreover, compared to ice cores from 1832, we see a 100 ppm increase in CO2 levels, roughly 3 times my estimate, and since 1960 the rise has been about 70 ppm (double my rough estimate).
What this suggests, as was your point but without any of your extraneous namecalling, is that at a minimum a significant portion of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activities. I've done nothing here that wasn't done much more thoroughly by actual climate scientists.
Now tell me, wouldn't you have been better served posting something like the above, rather than acting like a troll? Have I made my point yet, or shall I browbeat you some a second time?
There, I added, twisted, quoted out you out of context. Next, you can go crawl back into you hole and die, hopefully do so in an extremely painful way. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have to figure out a plan to deal with your old, daily commutes in your Ford Excursion
Go to your room and do not come out until you act like an adult.
Seriously, are you that emotionally vested that you need to wish a painful death on someone who doesn't come to the same conclusion as you (for whatever reason).
You sound like Ann Coulter wishing death by terrorism on John Edwards.
It's childish.
Mature forests DO NOT absorb any net CO2 or output any net 02. Deforestation of old growth forests (like the Amazon) does output CO2, mostly due to burning of biomass and gas release from the disturbed soil. Not from the absence of the trees themselves however (put another way, if the trees were magically teleported away from an old growth forest this would not increase the CO2 in the atmostphere. If anything, it would decrease it because new trees would grow on the vacant land, absorbing more CO2).
Moreover, you are making handwaving statements without any data to back it up, e.g. your claims that deforestation contributes more to CO2 emissions than energy production (which I'm too lazy to dig up references on right now).
Incidentally, the objective measure of "best" is that it leaves the greatest amount of time and resources in the hands of the programmers and users at the end of the day. i.e. economic efficiency.
I disagree. That is AN objective measure of "best." It is not the only objective criteria that can be used however.
Anecdote != Data
PhD Geology != MD Immunology
I wasn't aware we made fun of christians more than Scientologists. Pretty sure scientologists get the MOST scorn.
Then your faith was weak. The whole idea of faith is believing without evidence, even in the presence of contrary evidence. Hence the saying 'Have faith that...' Just because your faith was WEAK doesn't change the definition of the word.
Largest != majority. At less than 50% of US Christians, the majority are not catholic.
But there was no sun to be located on the ecliptic
It doesn't matter what they meant, they were making up numbers for the sake of arguments. Problem is, most arguments are pretty weak when you pull them out of your ass.
that would be an agreement the US never agreed to, so no.
Oh god yes it is. I had a tin of chocolate covered coffee beans at christmas. It was like two christmases.
Not at all. Those are examples of orthogonal functions, not opposites. The opposite of right is left, not forward.
You'd have to either do pills, or caffeine syrup. You can't physically drink enough coffee (or virtually energy drink) quickly enough to OD on caffeine. Unless you're willing to die of a ruptured bladder first.
Those photos are such a load of crap. Spiders have a drastically different neurological physiology from ours. They're not organized the same way, they don't have the same antagonist receptors, nor do the receptors do the same thing.
Judging from the LSD does in that photo (around 4 times the equivalent per body weight threshold dosage for humans), I'd say a lot.
In his hallucination it was.
I think your sig warrants everything you post being moderated +1 insightful. Which really only means that someone needs to mod this post -1 Depressing As All Hell.
Except that Germany and the UK are not third world countries, ergo he didn't(i.e. Germany and the UK are NOT examples of third world countries).
Which is a very good reason for teachers not to give out their phone numbers. Or addresses. Also, it's happened before (students putting porn on a teacher's computer).
Depth perception be damned!
How are they going to flip my pancakes now?
since when are dual monitors mass market?
As long as there is no man on the horse, we're good.