Comment Re:It will be too late. It probably already is (Score 1) 298
My point is that the statement "carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants" misses the point.
My point is that the statement "carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants" misses the point.
carbon dioxide is the most important gas on the planet, without it there would be no plants.
And water is the most important liquid on the planet, without it there would be no plants or animals. But that doesn't mean too much won't drown you.
Quoting Paracelsus, "dosis facit venenum" ("The dose makes the poison.")
Well, if he had been an actual Nazi stormtrooper, that's kind of frightening. Except that he would have to be pretty old by now.
A guy in a costume from a 1977 movie, though....
Because a "chaotic" or "unpredictable" orbit is a practical impossibility
To the contrary, it is likely that all orbits in systems with more than two bodies are chaotic. That includes our solar system.
Fortunately for us, the time scale for unpredictability for the solar system is many billions of years.
and is not what we found.
Well, that part was correct. What was found was that the rotations were chaotic. The orbits seem to be regular.
Aren't "cycling" and "chaotic" mutually exclusive?
No. Chaotic systems cycle-- look up, say "strange attractor". Or even google "cycle AND chaos theory."
What makes it chaotic is that the phase of the cycling is predictable in the short term, unpredictable in the long term.
Can we please get a medium.com tag so I can filter out this garbage. I don't want to read any "science" blog from an "author" who doesn't even know what chaotic means.
The use of the word "chaotic" is accurate here.
The inaccurate word used in the summary (not the article) was "orbit". It is the rotation that is chaotic, not the orbit.
Nevertheless, the science is pretty interesting. Sorry you don't want to hear about it.
What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ? http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de... There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount. Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.
(I will point out that this large number is only because China has such a large population. In terms of emission per person, USA beats them hands down)
Can't do that. China is, at this point, decades ahead of the US in renewable energy tech. There's no way we can address climate change in any reasonable timeframe without using Chinese products, at least in the near term. I don't know if China's huge investment in renewable tech is related to the fact that they don't have a Chamber of Commerce over there, I'll leave that for you to consider.
That is why climate change is a wicked hard problem: you can't solve it on your own-- it has to be a collaborative solution involving multiple countries.
And that, in turn, is why some people would rather deny that the problem exists rather than find a way to solve it: they have an ideology that says the US should never work in collaboration with other nations, not ever, not for any purpose. They don't have any mechanism in their ideology to solve the problem, so the only choice is to deny it exists.
Actively avoiding scientific data like that from the Magellan project?
?
Two of the top ten hits suggests that this refers to a spacecraft that orbited Venus, so I assume that this is some reference to the Venus greenhouse effect?
They're typically defining "poverty" as less than 1/2 the median income.
Citation needed.
These sources don't define it that way:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www...
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15...
So, the CEO's side of the story is that it's all somebody else's fault.
OK, that's not surprising. That's one side of the story. And, the other side says?
...while Obama (and everyone else) are doing the same shit.
That's a great link, AC... but it says the opposite of what you said it does. It does not at any point say Obama is doing this-- in fact, the one "sock puppet army" that it says it has unmasked is actually against Obama.
From page 4 of the article you reference, referring to what that article calls a "sock puppet army" and the article here calls "professional internet trolls":
"These accounts had consistent multi-faceted views: They were generally pro-Palestine and anti-Israel; they wrote “We (USA)” to present themselves as Western; were against Syria and US President Barrack Obama, and attempted to project themselves as pro-Islam with derogatory comments against Christianity.
“Who is this sock puppet army? It’s difficult to speculate"
Right, I was referring to the article referenced, not the slashdot thread.
It's amusing that in the comments on this article about pro-Russia propaganda-trolls, most of the comments are by the very pro-Russia propaganda trolls that the article exposes, belittling the article and blaming the west
You're aware that lithium is a rare earth element, right?
First, lithium is not a rare earth element.
http://www.rareelementresource...
Second, you do know that the rare earth elements are not actually "rare," right? They are roughly the same abundance as copper.
There's no such thing as lithium ore.
Sure there are. "Ore" is just a word meaning "a mineral deposit containing a desired substance in economically recoverable concentrations." Lithium ores are typically lithium-containing phyllosilicate minerals, often in the form of evaporite deposits.
You strip mine millions of tons, process it and get a few tons in return.
"If you could, either relativity is wrong, or you can use this to make a time machine to access the past."
Well, relativity is most certainly 'wrong', in the sense that there is more to the universe that it does not cover.
Saying "there are things it doesn't cover" is not the same as saying "it's wrong."
Of course, that's not really wrong, any more than Newton was wrong. Newton was not attempting to model relativistic effects, and Einstein was not attempting to model string theory. And luckily, we are not made out of light, so the speed of light has little to do with
The phrase "speed of light" is historical usage. An equally accurate phrase would be the universal conversion factor from units of space (meters) to units of time (seconds). It doesn't apply just to light, it is a universal constant that applies to pretty much everything in the universe, not just light. Most particularly, it applies to gravity.
a machine designed to alter a local region's gravitational constant,
If you alter the gravitational potential, the gravitational time dilation will mean that external observers will observe your speed of light as having changed. If you're in a gravity well, your clocks have slowed down, so it looks (from the outside) as if light has slowed down. But, inside the region of altered gravitational potential, if you measure the speed of light, it's still moving at the speed of light. You can't travel faster than the speed of light where you are.
that can travel at arbitrary speeds relative to the destination because it carries it's own engine with it. Relativity does not forbid a starship.
If you could travel at arbitrary speed (in any direction, in any reference frame), relativity says you could make a time machine. Space is time. If you can travel faster than the speed of light you can travel backwards or forward in time.
But none of that would ever allow you to travel back in time. That would be akin to traveling in a negative direction.
Right. If you can travel faster than the speed of light, but only one direction, then you can't make a time machine.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
