I think this is the most useless research ever conducted on animals. I just read about it and just couldn't believe it. http://www.livescience.com/42317-dogs-poop-along-north-south-magnetic-lines.html I quote: "researchers, who spent two years watching 70 dogs while they defecated and urinated thousands of times." And: "Their study, the authors wrote, also "forces
Ok fine, I'll not add more wood to the fire. I've deleted my last response as a sign of good faith.
edit: deleted.
Ok sorry, a while back (half a year or so, maybe one year at the most) I read articles about yearlong declines in PC sales, from e.g. HP. And I've read that many people who used to buy a PC just for browsing or playing simple games, nowadays buy tablets for that. Or they use their smartphone. It made sense at the time but I could be wrong, journalists tend to exaggerate.
Whatever ... if you look at those articles from heartland.org ... the way they present the data and then make conclusions... that's so obviously flawed, how can someone take that seriously? It has nothing to do with science, that's for sure. Who the hell are the people who write such things? They're not established scientists, they cannot be otherwise they wouldn't have made such mistakes ... or can anybody get a degree nowadays and then write all
[quote who="SivCorp" reply="1795" id="3430851"]Example 1[/quote] "What We're Fighting Against," says the Think Progress website, are: "Corrupt Establishment," "Incompetent Establishment," "Braindead Media," and "Radical Right-Wing Agenda.” Sounds good to me. Anyway, did you know that the "left" democratic party in the US is considered "right" in the Netherlands ? Do you think that the 20 trillion figur
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1790" id="3430808"]Nope. No change. Geo continues to believe that someone having a model in itself counts as evidence of something (or doing a lab experiment proves something about global climate).[/quote] It helps to understand 1 aspect of the climate. It is not even rocket science... it's almost like predicting the position of a car. If you move at 50 km/hour, then it'll take you 2 hours to get from A to B. I
The Fifth Element, that's my favorite. And then there are Resident Evil 2 and Flash Gordon of course...
edit: I think I'd better double-check everything :)
With the demise of the desktop PC, do these stats really matter? If you would include smartphones and tablets, then windows fares a lot worse. I think that after some time, there will be a backlash from tablets back to PCs. People who are used to say Android on their tablet, would they want to upgrade to windows when they buy a PC, or do they want to stick with Android (if that is at all possible) ? I like windows btw., I use it every day on my
Yes of course. I've found these equations, next I want to add a few numbers on temperature based on these equations. Like this Clive fellow did, but I'll use the original equation. Oh and I don't want to be a troll or something. Just give me the opportunity to quantify this ok? Otherwise it will be hard to say which contribution to the heat balance is important and which is not, and under which condition. &nb
That's so sad.
This then? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ CO2: 23 W/m 2 This is from 1979 so I suppose it's for a concentration of about 300 ppm. I don't know for sure. http://earthobservatory.
[quote who="Campaigner" reply="158" id="3430422"] It seems Europe goes for renewables while US and some others go for fracking. If that is true, then why doesn't the US go for renewable too? [/quote] Because of this: http://www.businessinsider.com/europes-soaring-energy-prices-2013-11 The U.S. does not want to pay the price, and doesn't really need to because they
http://www.livescience.com/15992-glowing-cats-photos.html Aren't they just cute...
Perhaps this article is convincing? http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/ Or maybe this is better as a starting point? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
Ok fine. Let's get this clear then. I think if you would only consider the sun, albedo and greenhouse effect, you'll cover over 90% of the temperature effects. I consider the rest just details and irrelevant for the overall temperature developments for the next century. I would also like to add, that I'm aiming for an equilibrium situation. This does not exists of course, but let's just say that after the next century everything would be kept constant so that oceans wo
I edited it back didn't I ? I just didn't expect such a quick reply :) Ok sigh ... semantics ... let's rewind to start. The energy balance roughly goes something like this: Sun = 100% Albedo = -20% Greenhouse effect = +10% Is that agreed on ?
[quote who="Jafo" reply="1775" id="3430336"]Am I making sense yet?[/quote] No. We are talking about a change in temperature, not about the absolute value of temperature. What difference did the sun make in the last 1,000 years really and what difference will the sun make in the next 1,000 years?
Happy new year.
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1770" id="3430247"]Speaking of twiddling... This is why I enjoy the arrogance of AGW proponents who claim the models are good enough and we must act based on their predictions.[/quote] I don't want to repeat myself, again, but ok ... I already know that models are not perfect. They're the best we've got for predicting the future. And they contain the best of our knowledge. You want to throw all t
Ok ... good luck twiddling your thing ...
I was talking about the absorption spectra of gases: CO2, H2O and so on. Together with knowledge of the composition of the atmosphere (partial pressure) and the necessary equations, those give you the contribution of CO2 to the heat balance of the Earth.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Lab measurements + equations are evidence of the CO2 effect ... there's no tradeoff with the sun, or clouds, everything was measured under controlled conditions in the lab ...
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1761" id="3429987"]The point is that a key scare-mongering claim of some AGW proponents was that Arctic sea ice was 'scheduled' to be gone by as early as this year, due to AGW.[/quote] I think I've heard of such claims a while ago ... sure such claims are ridiculous. [quote who="Daiwa" reply="1761" id="3429987"]The Arctic sea ice trend, in any event, is not evidence of CO2 as a driver of temperature, just a reflection of temperature.[
Sins Forums