There is little doubt that we are not responsable for *all* the warming. Even the IPCC report says that. The climate will change. We need to change with it. Not fight a nonlinear system we don't yet understand. How do we know we won't make matters even worse?
But that was my point. We don't want to change. We (Humans) don't want to give up our cars or Jet travel. The folks going on about how the Governemnts of the world should do more are often the ones that are the most resitant to change. But change will come anyway.
And even if we did understand the weather systems of the earth, it may not be controlable in the way we want.
Oh if change=rough times then sure, but don't buy the media hype or the AG dribble.
All too often the human race is guilty of doing things because they can, before they learn whether or not they should. QFT.
However this is not as bad as blocking the sun with mirrors or other such really really stupid ideas.
I think this is nice little though experiment. Say we *prove* beyond doubt (this is probably imposable) that we didn't cause the warming/cooling and that no matter what we do we going into a really warm/cold period. Would we still see it fit to "install" a planet wide airconditioning system?
You know because the change is natural so we shouldn't change it right? Or is that we just don't really want the/to change in the first place.
You create more carbon dioxide emissions by making paper and burying it to get rid of the minute amount of carbon that the tree(s) obtained from its photosynthesis process. What the hell. Where else does the carbon come from? Trees don't pull it out of the ground. ALL the Carbon in a tree comes from the atmosphere. Its anything but minute.
Drug companies use a *lot* of Governemnt funding. In fact they are tring to "recover" money they never spent in the first place. Well in the US anyway.
Dynamic pressure is 0.5*rho*v**2 . Its not magic, its plain physics. There are even special bullets designed to penitrate water currently in testing.
The other argument(s) other than I have done this many times and recovered the bullets myself: The denisity of targets is about the same as water and the "viscosity" is higher (Biological tissue/balistics gell). The bullets are designed to *not* break up on impact. Hunting bullets mushroom while metal jacket bullets look pretty much the same after hitting most "soft" targets (including wet wood, higher density than water).
I almost did a Utube video with my brother showing bullets shot into a pool. Then i realized that well really, who cares.
Oh and viscosity is not really relevant as the bulk of the force is from dynamic (pressure) effects, the shear forces introduced between the bullet and the barrel will be much higer than the viscosity effects of any liquid.
My point was not to debunk their science, because there is really no intention by the show to be scientific.
But if you want some first hand experiance, ask someone on D-day how well the water stoped the bullets from the.50cal. Water does not stop bullets no matter how you slice the Method. There are other aguments as well. But its not really the point.
This is another example of bad setups.. the guns that is.
While I was in NZ I had some pretty big rifles (not a.50 cal however). All of them shoot into water fine without shattering the bullet. My brother is in the army and they are taught that water is not cover and show them what a.50 cal can do to water and even brick bulidings! To make a long story short. Thay are just plain wrong.
But as others have said. If you watch for science then you are the fool. But it would be nice if they didn't claim to be so accurate (implied anyway.)
No its not. After all have you ever had a Xray? The total dosage wasn't all that high for a single mission, and most were happy with the risk for more than one. If a solar storm happened however... But we wern't such a bunch of tree hugging hippies back then and didn't mind the risk.
..export lots of low quality counterfeit products, Counterfeit yes. Low quality no. Many products come of the *same* production line with a slightly different logo (no serious retooling). Many "bootleg" CD's are printed from the same masters. The stuff is good. And cheaper. Also some of it is literaly stolen from the factory floor.
here is an enormous amount of scientific research being done in this area, and there are organizations willing to fund research debunking global warming (mainly in the petrolium industry) No theres not. And just try to get it published in a peer reviewed jornal. I would be much much harder than one that shows that GW is probably caused by our CO2. Also anyone showing somthing other than gloabal warming is our fault is a [see above comments].
And if it was funded by the "oil companies" no one would listen anyway.
Sorry, but there is no science on this at the momnent, its all political. If you can't see that then you are totaly blind.
And don't give me that scentists/scientific method crap. I am a scientist and I publish, we are as political and greedy as anyone else.
"scientific consensus". I keep hearing folk say this. Its not true and based on meadia point of view (MPV). I know many scientists from the feild who do not hold to this consensus. Read what this group of "scientific consensus" folk has published, and you will find that there really is a lot less consensus than you have been lead to belive.
The large volume of helium, which is at about 4K IIRC. Can freeze parts of your body, and asphyxiate you. The whole things is deep underground in an "enclosed" space.
Aspell and my Wife. MS word can't get close to the word I'm atempting to spell, niether can OO. My spellchecker plugins don't seem to work. You'll get over it.
When I started to use a spellchecker on my email, a few of my workmates asked me to turn it off. Becasue they liked to have a laugh about my spelling.
Unfortunatly the climate prediction does not lend itself to such easy predictions. There will be a ice age in the future. There will be warm periods inbetween. But what we are trying to do is say that it will warm buy 2 deg by 2100 and that we casued 80% of that warming from CO2. Thats quite a specific statement.
First, the media both loves controversy and hates appearing one-sided What media is that! The popular "media" I see and read is about as one sided as you can get.
In short, I would be unsurprised if 95% of the scientists actively doing climate research believed in the reality of anthropogenic global warming Talk to some and find out. Pop in to the nearset conference on the issue (if you are in the US they are very expensive however). Count me as a gloabal warming beliver and "humans are the Cause" doubter. Even better read some of the papers already published in peer rewived jornals. Its not as clear cut as it seems.
You really, really don't sound like the sort of person who could get a "peer reviewed paper" published on climate change. And in your opinion what does some who can get a paper out sound like? I have only 3 papers published in peer reviewed jornals and 1 book chapter that was also peer reviewed. But the postdoc sould bump that up.
-The underlying science of global warming does not require complex interactions. More CO2= more heat retained. The fundamental science isn't extremely complex and the evidence is overwhelming. The question is how much will it warm. Now its a complicated question. Infact one we can't answer with any proper relaiblity. Global warming is not what i dispute. Its the cause that I question. In fact its the confidance of the cause by the media and./ers that i question. Sure some scientist think its probable that it our contrabution to CO2. But thats a long way from evidance or proof.
Its interesting that you bring up newton. A 3 body system is in fact chaotic. We have good tools but the predictive power of obital mechanics falls in the same catagory. Fluid dynamics that governs the oceans (poorly understood and the dominate driver of long term climate) and the atmosphere are derived pulely from netwon laws of motion (ok a little thermodynamics as well).
Really this is a dam hard problem. Some of the claims are just to precise to be creidable. When you read the original source you find that things really arn't as simple or as certine as they "popular" versions claims.
Well first off I was OT. So i wasn't really expecting a reply. But since you did.....
99 out of 100 scientists and everybody outside the USA think otherwise. I'm sure it's conspiracy, so I'm awaiting your scientific evidence that will make you that 1 guy that puts it all right. Interesting "fact". You made it up based on what the popular media report I think. Guess what real scientists are not anything like that. Not even close. I could link to about 100-200 papers i have I on the topic since I use to work in the feild (more or less). But hay I was making a prediction! I intend to quote my own peer reviewed paper on the topic soon enough.
Not only prediction, the prediction is the result of historical fact: I wasn't talking about what has happened, but what will happen. Oh the planet will warm. How the hell can you get more vauge. The climate has never reamined constant. EVER. Futhermore Wikipedia is not a source of any scientific standing. If you want to get all "quote your source" quote a real source first.
If you have stuided historical climate and climate models you would know there is considrable doubt on the mechinisims that produce historical climate events. And knowing the past in a chaotic system does not improve your ablity to predict the future of the system.
I actually did search, and did come across this. And a backup (less amusing) source if first goes down. Oh its pretty dam ammusing. A Monkey that "drops its balls" is realy funny.
The number of downright stupid patents is not summed up by the words "sliped through". Sure they my be overworked and under paid. But toys that are fuled with farts, sticks to entertain dogs, or "one click" online crapola. Its stupid to assume thats novel, inventive or anything other than plain stupid.
There is no cost to the patent office for granting patents that are stupid. There is no or little cost to the applicant for appling for a stupid patent. Thats the problem.
In fact I would go one step further, and predict that once we understand our atmosphere we will be able to show that we can never predict events of that atmosphere. Chaos and all that. So to double the predive accuracy or time length you need exponetially more data. I predict that even with ultra addvanced mesurement methods and supercomputers we still won't have a good weather forcast past 1 month.
I still wonder why so many put so much faith in our gloabal warming prediction when our ablity to predict anything is rather poor. Especially the weather.
Unlike modding on/. which is a truly stochastic process with no hidden varables.;)
Slashdot Mirror
There is little doubt that we are not responsable for *all* the warming. Even the IPCC report says that. The climate will change. We need to change with it. Not fight a nonlinear system we don't yet understand. How do we know we won't make matters even worse?
But that was my point. We don't want to change. We (Humans) don't want to give up our cars or Jet travel. The folks going on about how the Governemnts of the world should do more are often the ones that are the most resitant to change. But change will come anyway.
And even if we did understand the weather systems of the earth, it may not be controlable in the way we want.
Oh if change=rough times then sure, but don't buy the media hype or the AG dribble.
Even more amusing is the fact that many of these laptops/batterys are permited on aircraft but not liquids over a 100ml or whatever.
However this is not as bad as blocking the sun with mirrors or other such really really stupid ideas.
I think this is nice little though experiment. Say we *prove* beyond doubt (this is probably imposable) that we didn't cause the warming/cooling and that no matter what we do we going into a really warm/cold period. Would we still see it fit to "install" a planet wide airconditioning system?
You know because the change is natural so we shouldn't change it right? Or is that we just don't really want the/to change in the first place.
Drug companies use a *lot* of Governemnt funding. In fact they are tring to "recover" money they never spent in the first place. Well in the US anyway.
Dynamic pressure is 0.5*rho*v**2 . Its not magic, its plain physics. There are even special bullets designed to penitrate water currently in testing.
The other argument(s) other than I have done this many times and recovered the bullets myself:
The denisity of targets is about the same as water and the "viscosity" is higher (Biological tissue/balistics gell). The bullets are designed to *not* break up on impact. Hunting bullets mushroom while metal jacket bullets look pretty much the same after hitting most "soft" targets (including wet wood, higher density than water).
I almost did a Utube video with my brother showing bullets shot into a pool. Then i realized that well really, who cares.
Oh and viscosity is not really relevant as the bulk of the force is from dynamic (pressure) effects, the shear forces introduced between the bullet and the barrel will be much higer than the viscosity effects of any liquid.
My point was not to debunk their science, because there is really no intention by the show to be scientific.
.50cal. Water does not stop bullets no matter how you slice the Method. There are other aguments as well. But its not really the point.
But if you want some first hand experiance, ask someone on D-day how well the water stoped the bullets from the
This is another example of bad setups.. the guns that is.
.50 cal however). All of them shoot into water fine without shattering the bullet. My brother is in the army and they are taught that water is not cover and show them what a .50 cal can do to water and even brick bulidings! To make a long story short. Thay are just plain wrong.
While I was in NZ I had some pretty big rifles (not a
But as others have said. If you watch for science then you are the fool. But it would be nice if they didn't claim to be so accurate (implied anyway.)
No its not. After all have you ever had a Xray? The total dosage wasn't all that high for a single mission, and most were happy with the risk for more than one. If a solar storm happened however... But we wern't such a bunch of tree hugging hippies back then and didn't mind the risk.
..export lots of low quality counterfeit products, Counterfeit yes. Low quality no. Many products come of the *same* production line with a slightly different logo (no serious retooling). Many "bootleg" CD's are printed from the same masters. The stuff is good. And cheaper. Also some of it is literaly stolen from the factory floor.And if it was funded by the "oil companies" no one would listen anyway.
Sorry, but there is no science on this at the momnent, its all political. If you can't see that then you are totaly blind.
And don't give me that scentists/scientific method crap. I am a scientist and I publish, we are as political and greedy as anyone else.
"scientific consensus". I keep hearing folk say this. Its not true and based on meadia point of view (MPV). I know many scientists from the feild who do not hold to this consensus. Read what this group of "scientific consensus" folk has published, and you will find that there really is a lot less consensus than you have been lead to belive.
Iain Banks in his Culture series would be at the mark. The Culture have everything you want, you just ask and poof, you receive.
The large volume of helium, which is at about 4K IIRC. Can freeze parts of your body, and asphyxiate you. The whole things is deep underground in an "enclosed" space.
And what kind of OS will just blindlty starting excuting the code on the USB? Oh... nevermind.
But then again, its nothing new
My masters thesis was basicly this. There intro reads the same as my MSc intro. I published that with the university of auckland in 2002.
So where do I take my prior art?
But if you won the trip, you simply mite not have $25,000. Then what? What about which tax year it lands on? Since he can't take the flight yet.
Aspell and my Wife. MS word can't get close to the word I'm atempting to spell, niether can OO. My spellchecker plugins don't seem to work. You'll get over it.
When I started to use a spellchecker on my email, a few of my workmates asked me to turn it off. Becasue they liked to have a laugh about my spelling.
Unfortunatly the climate prediction does not lend itself to such easy predictions. There will be a ice age in the future. There will be warm periods inbetween. But what we are trying to do is say that it will warm buy 2 deg by 2100 and that we casued 80% of that warming from CO2. Thats quite a specific statement.
Its interesting that you bring up newton. A 3 body system is in fact chaotic. We have good tools but the predictive power of obital mechanics falls in the same catagory. Fluid dynamics that governs the oceans (poorly understood and the dominate driver of long term climate) and the atmosphere are derived pulely from netwon laws of motion (ok a little thermodynamics as well).
Really this is a dam hard problem. Some of the claims are just to precise to be creidable. When you read the original source you find that things really arn't as simple or as certine as they "popular" versions claims.
Not only prediction, the prediction is the result of historical fact: I wasn't talking about what has happened, but what will happen. Oh the planet will warm. How the hell can you get more vauge. The climate has never reamined constant. EVER. Futhermore Wikipedia is not a source of any scientific standing. If you want to get all "quote your source" quote a real source first.
If you have stuided historical climate and climate models you would know there is considrable doubt on the mechinisims that produce historical climate events. And knowing the past in a chaotic system does not improve your ablity to predict the future of the system.
The number of downright stupid patents is not summed up by the words "sliped through". Sure they my be overworked and under paid. But toys that are fuled with farts, sticks to entertain dogs, or "one click" online crapola. Its stupid to assume thats novel, inventive or anything other than plain stupid.
There is no cost to the patent office for granting patents that are stupid. There is no or little cost to the applicant for appling for a stupid patent. Thats the problem.
I would aggree with you.
/. which is a truly stochastic process with no hidden varables. ;)
In fact I would go one step further, and predict that once we understand our atmosphere we will be able to show that we can never predict events of that atmosphere. Chaos and all that. So to double the predive accuracy or time length you need exponetially more data. I predict that even with ultra addvanced mesurement methods and supercomputers we still won't have a good weather forcast past 1 month.
I still wonder why so many put so much faith in our gloabal warming prediction when our ablity to predict anything is rather poor. Especially the weather.
Unlike modding on