And it is thought that the water on earth did not all come from comets, as there is too much for that to happen. They now think that it came from processes within the earth itself. So the basic ideas are still changing.
such as by effectively killing the NBN which would provide a high speed network allowing people to stream TV, movies etc in 4K, thereby rendering Foxtel unneeded.
I know you are joking but one interesting point on CO2 removal is that the problem is CO2 in the upper atmosphere which provides a "blanket" over us all. Lowering CO2 in the lower atmosphere will be helpful longterm but will not actually solve the CO2 problem for a long time. Upper atmosphere CO2 stays there for hundreds of years. Which is why we need to working on solutions today.
Given that Red Dwarves (Dwarfs?) are like large jupiters and jupiter has moons, why would a Red Dwarf not have moon-like objects? Whether we call them planets or moons is just a matter of classification.
Two miles per hour is much slower than i can get my Kerbal space ships. Of course, in that you are flying by the seat of your pants and another space ship is just a few clicks away. Still, it gives you a bit of an appreciation of what they have achieved with Rosetta.
This is all well understood. Decreased sea ice in the arctic and increased sea ice in the Antarctic are both due to warming. Increases in the ice sheet is due to increased humidity due to warming. All of these things are not sustainable in the longterm.
Plants take in CO2, die and release that CO2 unless buried under tonnes of rock. We are taking those plants buried under tonnes of rock and burning them, releasing their CO2. The accumulation of millions of years are being released in a handful of years. It will not be solved overnight by plants but will need a longtime to be removed from the environment. Also the warming is a result of CO2 going into the upper atmosphere, a long way from where most plants exist. That CO2 will stay up there for hundreds of years. All of this is well studied and if there was a simple solution you can bet the deniers would be quoting it every time. They don't because there isn't one.
The same process that reduces Arctic ice (warming), increases Antarctic ice (warming). The difference is that the sea ice in Antarctica comes from the land. Also there is some increase in mainland ice in Antarctica due to the increased moisture in the air (also due to warming) as normally Antarctic air is dry like a desert. Regardless, both places are losing ice in the long run. Adding Arctic sea-ice coverage to Antarctic sea-ice coverage to say that everything is ok is just trying to spin the facts to suit your politics. The science is quite clear.
evolutions science is very similar to physics science. Physics science is by no means nailed down 100% and there are competing theories that eventually may get confirmed or eliminated. I think you are trying to compare evolution science to pure mathematics, specifically that which can be proved based on a set of axioms.
If you want to compare evolution to police work then compare it to OJ Simpson, since we know he did it!
Sorry you lost your wife and son. I think experiences such as yours shows the background and reason why humans had to invent gods. Originally those gods were in the Sun, or Rocks or Trees or anything else mystical, and they gave comfort to humans. Which is fine, but let's not confuse that comfort with something that actually exists.
Slashdot Mirror
And it is thought that the water on earth did not all come from comets, as there is too much for that to happen. They now think that it came from processes within the earth itself. So the basic ideas are still changing.
I think it is distribution rights, copyright rights. Netflix would have to pay the right entities so you could watch that movie
such as by effectively killing the NBN which would provide a high speed network allowing people to stream TV, movies etc in 4K, thereby rendering Foxtel unneeded.
Not sure why you all are just finding problems with it.
I know you are joking but one interesting point on CO2 removal is that the problem is CO2 in the upper atmosphere which provides a "blanket" over us all. Lowering CO2 in the lower atmosphere will be helpful longterm but will not actually solve the CO2 problem for a long time. Upper atmosphere CO2 stays there for hundreds of years. Which is why we need to working on solutions today.
and for the U.S. it is "I will be with you momentarily" (you can only stay for a second? not longer?)
Love the "Do the needful". My favourite saying for South East Asia is "I will revert to you" (really? you will turn back into me?)
Medicine is cheap. Was there last week. Bought three items for a total of about 3 dollars that would be ten times that in Australia.
Those vegetables are ionions?
try this... http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2...
Given that Red Dwarves (Dwarfs?) are like large jupiters and jupiter has moons, why would a Red Dwarf not have moon-like objects? Whether we call them planets or moons is just a matter of classification.
Two miles per hour is much slower than i can get my Kerbal space ships. Of course, in that you are flying by the seat of your pants and another space ship is just a few clicks away. Still, it gives you a bit of an appreciation of what they have achieved with Rosetta.
This is all well understood. Decreased sea ice in the arctic and increased sea ice in the Antarctic are both due to warming. Increases in the ice sheet is due to increased humidity due to warming. All of these things are not sustainable in the longterm.
Plants take in CO2, die and release that CO2 unless buried under tonnes of rock. We are taking those plants buried under tonnes of rock and burning them, releasing their CO2. The accumulation of millions of years are being released in a handful of years. It will not be solved overnight by plants but will need a longtime to be removed from the environment. Also the warming is a result of CO2 going into the upper atmosphere, a long way from where most plants exist. That CO2 will stay up there for hundreds of years. All of this is well studied and if there was a simple solution you can bet the deniers would be quoting it every time. They don't because there isn't one.
The same process that reduces Arctic ice (warming), increases Antarctic ice (warming). The difference is that the sea ice in Antarctica comes from the land. Also there is some increase in mainland ice in Antarctica due to the increased moisture in the air (also due to warming) as normally Antarctic air is dry like a desert. Regardless, both places are losing ice in the long run. Adding Arctic sea-ice coverage to Antarctic sea-ice coverage to say that everything is ok is just trying to spin the facts to suit your politics. The science is quite clear.
"I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good." (Napoleon Bonaparte)
Can you share your alternative theory/papers? i am sure people here would be interested.
Calling Barbara Streisand...
If you do not enjoy work then that is the problem to be fixed. Find a job you love.
It's hard to detect sarcasm when speaking of this nature about Brittan. The government there already places surveillance cameras in private homes.
you spelled guvmint wrong
evolutions science is very similar to physics science. Physics science is by no means nailed down 100% and there are competing theories that eventually may get confirmed or eliminated. I think you are trying to compare evolution science to pure mathematics, specifically that which can be proved based on a set of axioms.
If you want to compare evolution to police work then compare it to OJ Simpson, since we know he did it!
Sorry you lost your wife and son. I think experiences such as yours shows the background and reason why humans had to invent gods. Originally those gods were in the Sun, or Rocks or Trees or anything else mystical, and they gave comfort to humans. Which is fine, but let's not confuse that comfort with something that actually exists.
Sad, but he was 86. I am just not sure of the "News for Nerds" angle here...
You are probably correct. I think they are just saying that the target range could be larger than we assume. There are no guarantees.
Science doesn't seek to prove god doesn't exist but the learnings of science is that any god would be irrelevant, so might as well not exist
> With no real facts, intuition only,
Which sums up how religion works and fails when thinking about science.
There may not be intelligent life out there but looking for it does not cost much and exploring is not that expensive. So we might as well do it.