If the federal government wanted to fix the problem, they should have done something about those governments, not violate the constitution and interfere with intrastate commerce. They might as well have sent troops to the local playgrounds to force the white and black children to play together at gunpoint.
You think the federal government has unlimited authority to tell people how to run their businesses?
You do realize that that intrusion into intrastate commerce set the precedent for the numerous intrusions that followed, and lead directly to the loss of our industrial base, right?
But you don't care about that. You just want to keep paving ever wider highways to Hell with your abundant good intentions, regardless of the outcomes.
Lockable strong doors leading to the cockpit are the only thing needed, if that. No airline passenger will ever allow another 9/11 to happen. Planes could only be hijacked when people thought they had a chance of surviving if they did nothing. With it now likely that they will be used as a weapon, they won't comply, and will overpower any hijacker. That transition happened so quickly, the fourth plane never made it to its target.
Uhhh, did it ever occur to you that he is going after the TSA FIRST, because of their nude scans and genital gropes in addition to their unconstitutionality?
If we can get rid of the most egregious violations, then maybe this country will be worth living in again. If you are so very attracted to your own pet agency, then you can oppose him when he proposes their dismantlement.
Not that you will have a choice, as the debt is on a course for total government collapse and replacement with God knows what horrible dystopian system.
Your post is the equivalent of saying that cyanide is not deadly because it only kills cells, ignoring that the organism is made up of cells. Or like saying that cirrhosis of the liver isn't caused by alcoholism because alcohol clears the system in a few hours (ignoring the fact that the patient is a roaring drunk who drinks in ever increasing amounts).
I see you have taken the false dichotomy hook, line, and sinker. Does it bother you that you are ridiculing a guy who is is called an AGW troll by the deniers you claim to hate so much? Really, your anti-rational (read: anti-science) attitude fits right in with theirs.
Just another BS trollpost. Heat capacity has EVERYTHING to do with global warming! The atmosphere is a blanket, and blankets are blankets because of their heat capacity. This is the most fundamental kindergarden level of global warming theory, and the fact that you fail to understand even that shows that you are totally ignorant on the subject, and instead are operating solely as an uninformed, ignorant zealot with exactly zero critical thinking skills.
Nice handwaving dismissal. Why don't you tell me what absorption and re-emission of photons in Raman spectra mean if not absorption and re emission of photons, and maybe post a spectrum showing that nitrogen doesn't do that somehow, and perhaps you can wave your magic wand while you are at it and tell us why physics is wrong and you are right.
The fact is that it IS a WEAK greenhouse gas. If a planet had a nitrogen atmosphere, it would be blazing hot during the day, and freezing cold at night, but significantly less so than a planet with no atmosphere. The gas particles have a temperature and a heat capacity. Yes they are LOW, but they are non-zero. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
You forget about the Ramen spectrum. Not all the degrees of freedom are expressed on the IR spectrum.
You are confusing the heat capacity of the atmosphere (the ability to absorb and reemit IR photons) with heat forcing (the ability to absorb high energy photons and release IR photons). Vibrational modes in gases are not relevant to heat capacity (at room temperature) according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry) but they are VERY relevant to heat forcing, as that is the method by which a molecule emits photons--low energy photons ie heat.
Monotomic gases can absorb photons, which add to their velocity. They can shed energy through collision ONLY, not through emission of a photon. Their heat capacity is 3 vs 5 for diatomics and longer linear molecules, and 6 for nonlinear triatomics like water, and 3N for larger nonlinears. These are all pretty much the same, basically 3N, which is why the heat capacity for gases normalized for the number of atoms varies so little (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat).
Yes, water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere forever, but what happens when you continuously pump it into the atmosphere every day at ever increasing rates for a hundred years while simultaneously reducing the ability of the soil to absorb it by paving over it?
Your math leaves out water vapor variability, and I'm pretty sure it is wrong besides that. It also doesn't account for the disparity in warming in different places around the globe (ie cold Asia, warm Arctic). I will do the numbers myself later this morning. As I recall, the heat forcing of CO2 is something like 5x that of a standard diatomic gas, ie N2 or O2, which make up a huge fraction of the atmosphere. When I ran this calculation before, CO2 was only barely a net heat forcer in the absence of water vapor. Including water vapor it slightly reduces the heat forcing of the atmosphere.
How can we call it global when it is having no effect on the glaciers of Asia?
My hypothesis that it is actually increased levels of humidity causing the warming trend we have seen seems to find more and more factual support every day. Too bad everyone wants to think it either isn't happening at all, is totally natural, or that mankind is 100% the cause and we must repent from our evil startlingly efficient industrial society, rather than actually allowing new information to change their minds.
AGW/anti-AGW is a war, and ideas are soldiers. To deny an idiotic idea that supports your premise is seen as treason, and simply isn't done. This is why AGW people will likely never be able to understand that CO2 has a vanishingly small effect on the climate, water vapor has a gigantic effect on weather patterns. Similarly, anti-AGW people will never be able to see that continuous increases in water vapor emission will cause long term increases in atmospheric water vapor, which will eventually cause a change that is seen in "climate". Of course, when the worldwide economy starts to break down, the increase in water vapor emissions slows and stops as consumption drops, and the effect levels off rather neatly.
Unfortunately, human beings allow ideas to become cults, and they gravitate toward one side or the other rather than taking a rational view based on evidence, rather than refusing to take part in the false dichotomy set up by others.
Replace "plumber" with "used car salesman" and the problem with trusting authority becomes clear. If the used car salesman wants to keep his job, he is going to have to exaggerate the value of his goods. If a climate scientist wants to keep their grant funding, then...
No knowledge or concept is innate. If it was, feral children would understand such things.
But it isn't cultural either. There is no culture in the world, nor has there ever been one (to my knowledge), that could count but couldn't measure. African pygmies are about as backward as you can get, but they measure distance in the number of days it takes to walk somewhere.
A single unit is an unbelievably low threshold for toxicity. One unit of anything can get anywhere on the body. Why do you think they have to destroy the animal (and that any other country on the planet would destroy the entire herd)?
The same protein is present in human brains, and it is absolutely transmissible to and between any mammal (or at least any mammal that uses that protein, or one similar enough to be similarly affected). My great aunt died from it decades ago. She contracted it in England as a child, apparently.
Unless you drank a glass of milk containing a single unit of the malformed protein, in which case you are going to die in 10-30 years.
There is some promising work on "vaccines" in mice, but the way this country is screwed up with regards to medical regulation, I'm not sure we'll see it in time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the governments would cheer them on.
If the federal government wanted to fix the problem, they should have done something about those governments, not violate the constitution and interfere with intrastate commerce. They might as well have sent troops to the local playgrounds to force the white and black children to play together at gunpoint.
I never heard of such problems prior to 1913, the year a stake was driven through the heart of the free market.
But then, you can always fix the problems caused by force, anger, and hatred with more force, anger, and hatred, right?
You think the federal government has unlimited authority to tell people how to run their businesses?
You do realize that that intrusion into intrastate commerce set the precedent for the numerous intrusions that followed, and lead directly to the loss of our industrial base, right?
But you don't care about that. You just want to keep paving ever wider highways to Hell with your abundant good intentions, regardless of the outcomes.
No, it isn't. Rand always referred to his son. If you thought otherwise, it is because you were ignorant.
Don't worry, they just need to be reeducated, Komrade.
Lockable strong doors leading to the cockpit are the only thing needed, if that. No airline passenger will ever allow another 9/11 to happen. Planes could only be hijacked when people thought they had a chance of surviving if they did nothing. With it now likely that they will be used as a weapon, they won't comply, and will overpower any hijacker. That transition happened so quickly, the fourth plane never made it to its target.
Uhhh, did it ever occur to you that he is going after the TSA FIRST, because of their nude scans and genital gropes in addition to their unconstitutionality?
If we can get rid of the most egregious violations, then maybe this country will be worth living in again. If you are so very attracted to your own pet agency, then you can oppose him when he proposes their dismantlement.
Not that you will have a choice, as the debt is on a course for total government collapse and replacement with God knows what horrible dystopian system.
I think he means that with it ever so slightly harder to get pirated software, MS feels like it can increase their prices.
That is quite convenient, it seems to me.
Your post is the equivalent of saying that cyanide is not deadly because it only kills cells, ignoring that the organism is made up of cells. Or like saying that cirrhosis of the liver isn't caused by alcoholism because alcohol clears the system in a few hours (ignoring the fact that the patient is a roaring drunk who drinks in ever increasing amounts).
I see you have taken the false dichotomy hook, line, and sinker. Does it bother you that you are ridiculing a guy who is is called an AGW troll by the deniers you claim to hate so much? Really, your anti-rational (read: anti-science) attitude fits right in with theirs.
But hey, fight on, Christian soldier.
Just another BS trollpost. Heat capacity has EVERYTHING to do with global warming! The atmosphere is a blanket, and blankets are blankets because of their heat capacity. This is the most fundamental kindergarden level of global warming theory, and the fact that you fail to understand even that shows that you are totally ignorant on the subject, and instead are operating solely as an uninformed, ignorant zealot with exactly zero critical thinking skills.
Nice handwaving dismissal. Why don't you tell me what absorption and re-emission of photons in Raman spectra mean if not absorption and re emission of photons, and maybe post a spectrum showing that nitrogen doesn't do that somehow, and perhaps you can wave your magic wand while you are at it and tell us why physics is wrong and you are right.
The fact is that it IS a WEAK greenhouse gas. If a planet had a nitrogen atmosphere, it would be blazing hot during the day, and freezing cold at night, but significantly less so than a planet with no atmosphere. The gas particles have a temperature and a heat capacity. Yes they are LOW, but they are non-zero. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
You forget about the Ramen spectrum. Not all the degrees of freedom are expressed on the IR spectrum.
You are confusing the heat capacity of the atmosphere (the ability to absorb and reemit IR photons) with heat forcing (the ability to absorb high energy photons and release IR photons). Vibrational modes in gases are not relevant to heat capacity (at room temperature) according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry)
but they are VERY relevant to heat forcing, as that is the method by which a molecule emits photons--low energy photons ie heat. Monotomic gases can absorb photons, which add to their velocity. They can shed energy through collision ONLY, not through emission of a photon. Their heat capacity is 3 vs 5 for diatomics and longer linear molecules, and 6 for nonlinear triatomics like water, and 3N for larger nonlinears. These are all pretty much the same, basically 3N, which is why the heat capacity for gases normalized for the number of atoms varies so little (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat).
Yes, water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere forever, but what happens when you continuously pump it into the atmosphere every day at ever increasing rates for a hundred years while simultaneously reducing the ability of the soil to absorb it by paving over it?
Your math leaves out water vapor variability, and I'm pretty sure it is wrong besides that. It also doesn't account for the disparity in warming in different places around the globe (ie cold Asia, warm Arctic). I will do the numbers myself later this morning. As I recall, the heat forcing of CO2 is something like 5x that of a standard diatomic gas, ie N2 or O2, which make up a huge fraction of the atmosphere. When I ran this calculation before, CO2 was only barely a net heat forcer in the absence of water vapor. Including water vapor it slightly reduces the heat forcing of the atmosphere.
How can we call it global when it is having no effect on the glaciers of Asia?
My hypothesis that it is actually increased levels of humidity causing the warming trend we have seen seems to find more and more factual support every day. Too bad everyone wants to think it either isn't happening at all, is totally natural, or that mankind is 100% the cause and we must repent from our evil startlingly efficient industrial society, rather than actually allowing new information to change their minds.
AGW/anti-AGW is a war, and ideas are soldiers. To deny an idiotic idea that supports your premise is seen as treason, and simply isn't done. This is why AGW people will likely never be able to understand that CO2 has a vanishingly small effect on the climate, water vapor has a gigantic effect on weather patterns. Similarly, anti-AGW people will never be able to see that continuous increases in water vapor emission will cause long term increases in atmospheric water vapor, which will eventually cause a change that is seen in "climate". Of course, when the worldwide economy starts to break down, the increase in water vapor emissions slows and stops as consumption drops, and the effect levels off rather neatly.
Unfortunately, human beings allow ideas to become cults, and they gravitate toward one side or the other rather than taking a rational view based on evidence, rather than refusing to take part in the false dichotomy set up by others.
Fuck that.
Come back when its a catastrophe!
Replace "plumber" with "used car salesman" and the problem with trusting authority becomes clear. If the used car salesman wants to keep his job, he is going to have to exaggerate the value of his goods. If a climate scientist wants to keep their grant funding, then...
Non-religious people don't make grandiose claims about how you and going to go to a firey pit of torment for all time because of $STUPIDREASON.
I see you continue to refuse to think for yourself, and decry any who do. What exactly are you so afraid they might find?
Then would the religious folks all go to hell?
"all liars"
lol
No knowledge or concept is innate. If it was, feral children would understand such things.
But it isn't cultural either. There is no culture in the world, nor has there ever been one (to my knowledge), that could count but couldn't measure. African pygmies are about as backward as you can get, but they measure distance in the number of days it takes to walk somewhere.
A single unit is an unbelievably low threshold for toxicity. One unit of anything can get anywhere on the body. Why do you think they have to destroy the animal (and that any other country on the planet would destroy the entire herd)?
The same protein is present in human brains, and it is absolutely transmissible to and between any mammal (or at least any mammal that uses that protein, or one similar enough to be similarly affected). My great aunt died from it decades ago. She contracted it in England as a child, apparently.
Unless you drank a glass of milk containing a single unit of the malformed protein, in which case you are going to die in 10-30 years.
There is some promising work on "vaccines" in mice, but the way this country is screwed up with regards to medical regulation, I'm not sure we'll see it in time.
You going to sell them from Europe? lol
I don't know. Why build cities in the New World? No-one lives there!