Leaderboard

And in a great deal of cases, things in nature don't "look designed". Compare the human brain to the aforementioned lap-top. With the lap-top, everything in it has a purpose aimed towards the proper operation of the device. It doesn't have buttons or switches that were needed for earlier computers and no longer have any function now, for example. The human brain however, is a series of more complex structures built on top of earlier more primitive brain structures. There is no indication that its final form arose from any design process. It would be like designing the lap top by starting with a ENIAC base structure, and tacking a IBM 360 architecture on top on that, then adding a 6502, then a 16 bit microprocessor... No sane designer would go about it that way.

There isn't enough information (ie. no numbers). But feel free to show how your equation "solves" this, instead of just claiming that it does.

Among my proposals for the oboe and similar, the D even fingering variant takes the fewest and simplest keys. How many bare holes can it use? None at the five thumb holes. Not at the second index hole that should be placed properly a semitone higher than the first. Supposedly not at the pinkies as they are short. 6 holes remain. They can all be bare at the oboe and oboe d'amore, for agile, silent, reliable, light and cheap instruments. At the oboe da caccia and cor anglais, the left hand holes can be bare, plus two at right hand: same R1 to R2 spacing as on the bassoon, comfortable but for children. The baritone oboe can have two bare holes at left hand. The real distances will be slightly smaller. The table takes half-wavelengths in air, but small tone holes are higher on the air column. I would not have long skewed tone holes as the bassoon has. They behave differently at the upper register, but the cross-fingerings there should fit a whole instrument family. Chambers eccentric above the tone hole narrow bore can gain a few mm. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

Because there is no line.

The assumptions here are that 1) you’d build and own the robots, and 2) you’d still get paid. If those apply, you’re surely right that this is all motherhood and apple pie. However, much more likely is that a tiny handful of ultra rich will build and own all robots, workers will be both displaced and cutout of any profits or income, and the classes will further separate while people starve and struggle to keep a roof over their heads... unless we proactively put policies in place to support the masses irrespective of robot ownership.

Dutchman - The mainstream science conclusions are sound; much more competent people than you or I have been all over climate science and again and again confirm the CO2 and warming connection. No matter whether called for by governments leaning Left or those leaning Right, no matter which nation's science institutions, the conclusion remains that we face a serious climate problem of immense proportions - due mostly to excessive fossil fuel burning. That is based on a good understanding of the underlying processes. We continue to learn more all the time, around the edges of understanding, that the Anything-But-CO2 crowd keep trying to nibble at in lieu of having any sound basis for rejecting the CO2 and climate connection. That includes recently establishing a link between mass mortality in the 1500's across the Americas, massive regrowth of forests and a drop in global CO2 levels of around 7ppm, contributing to the Little Ice Age. As did major volcanic eruptions in close succession, making a feedback loop from increased snow cover that lasted several decades. The closer we look at these kinds of past climate variations the more confirmation of the mainstream science view we get, not less. Which is consistent with that view being correct. I am not going to waste much more time on this - I will continue to trust those decades of top level expert advice and advocate for governments to make that advice the bottom line - and urge them to reject rather than encourage the kinds of pseudo expertise you espouse.

! Moderator Note I see no model, or any attempt to provide evidence or a testable prediction for this speculation, as required by the rules.

Hi, I am new on this forum, and English is also not my home language. But I think I can explain my questions in English. I read an article of Valentina Zharkova in nature Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 (is'nt it possible to create an hyperlink?) That article claimed (among other things) that the earth is in a cycle of 2000 years, started around 1600. In that cycle the global temperature will rice until 2600 (+2.5 C), after that it will decrease for 1000 years. Similar cycles were responsible for the roman warm period and the medieval warm period (between 900 and 1100). There are also other cycles, which are even larger in time, related to precession and tile of the planet earth, but that is not the subject of this topic. This is how it works, according to Zharkova. And also how I interpreted it, because it is also possible that I misunderstood the theorie. The plantes in the solar system makes their orbits, not around the sun but around the barycentre. The barycentre is the magnetic middle of the solar system. The sun is almost never situated on the focus of the barycentre but wobble around the barycentre. It can move from the centre away but also to the centre of the barycentre. In the current cycle, it moves away from the centre. If the sun is closer to the earth, the terrestrial temperature will increase, what is very logic. If the sun was on the focus of the bary centre, In aphelion ( then summer in northern hemisphere) the sun is at a distance of 1.53 * 108 and in perihelion 1.47 * 108 (closer in winter in northern hemisphere). However, the sun is not at the focus. If the sun moves to perihelion, the earth wil be shortest to sun 1.44 *108. while at aphelion it will increase to 1.55 × 108 km. This was the case during millennium prior the maunder minimum (until around 1600). If the Sun moves in its SIM closer to Earth’s aphelion decreasing the Earth orbit eccentricity (which mean orbit is more simular to a circle) as it is happening in the current millennium starting from Maunder Minimum (around 1600), then the distance between Sun and Earth at the aphelion will become shorter approaching 1.49 × 108 km during the summer in the Northern and winter in the Southern hemispheres, and longer at the perihelion approaching 1.50 × 108, or during a winter in the Northern and summer in the Southern hemispheres.Hence, at this SIM position of the Sun, the Earth in aphelion should receive higher solar irradiance (and temperature) during the Northern hemisphere summers and Southern hemisphere winters. When the Earth moves to its perihelion, the distance to the Sun will become longer and thus, the solar irradiance will become lower leading to colder winters in the Northern hemisphere and colder summers in the Southern one. This is what happening in the terrestrial temperature in the current millennium starting since Maunder minimum and lasting until ≈2600. My question is WHY DOES THIS MEAN THAT TSI (solar warmth per square metre) INCREASE OVER ONE YEAR UNTIL 2600, SO TERRESTRIAL TEMPERATURE PER YEAR INCREASE? So the SUN is moving away from its center, in the direction of the aphelion, resulting in higher total TSI per year. Why? If the sun is closer to earth in Aphelion, it will be less closer to earth in prehilion. So isn't that mean, more TSI in aphelion and less TSI in prehelium equeals zero?? Or Is TSI increase over one year because the orbit is less exentric, so earth catch more TSI ??????? I hope somebode can explain this to me. Zharkova received a lot of critics (in particularly from AGW supporters) so she explained in more detail. https://thegrandsolarminimum.com/valentina-zharkovas-critics-should-be-embarrassed/ Some critic said that the theory is against the laws of Kepler. Zharkova explained that the wobbling orbit of the sun around the barycentre is not a Kepler motion but is triggered by the gravity laws of Newton and caused by the gravity of the planets. The sun wobbles, and if the planets remain the same distance to the sun, its orbits would wobble also, but that is not the case, because the orbits are not around the sun, but around the barycenter. They do not chaotic wobbles like the sun does around the barycentre. Besides the sun, the gravity of the planets also influence the position of the barycentre. The sun makes a circle of max 4.3 solar radii (696,000 km) around its barycentre.

a picture of what was around it. get real