jake.com

 

Try telling that to this guy. Despite my posting many scientific articles and studies about the temperature record he maintains that any data that shows data is due to either:

 

A. Bullying of scientists which causes them to make up data

B. Urban heat islands, even though I have posted many articles that deal with this supposed problem.

 

Its very hard talking to a person like this. It's like I have a compulsion to respond to idiocy, and I feel like it validates that idiocy in some way if I stop. So I keep wasting my time responding to their idiotic claims.

keep your cool and force them to explain themselves. its the same arguement i use to argue with religious fanatics. without evidence, there is no arguement.

A. Bullying of scientists which causes them to make up data :

with this arguement, ask them simply "who created the theory then? If everyone was bullied into it, how did it come about in the first place?"

B. Urban heat islands, even though I have posted many articles that deal with this supposed problem. :

idk what this is, so i can't argue for or against it.

deem Boxxy as their queen.

you dont need ritalin to do that ._.

(And if we could, there would be much greater benefits than just a better maglev train.)

such as? I'm not being facetious, i am legitimately interested.

Check to see who edited their post after Phi said that

wow. I completely missed that.

You can't *be* awesome if you can't *spell* awesome. It's like a law.

who spelled awesome wrong?

Right, but two threads aren't really enough to justify opening an entire new forum category. Take into account that each forum category requires a separate moderator, and also requires people actively LOOKING at it to see the threads. If we're only talking about 2-3 threads, then they'd probably get much more attention and debate while in the general sciences category that people *already* are looking at... In this case, splitting it to a new category might actually be detrimental to these debates.

yeah, i can see your point. I would volunteer to be the mod for the board, but i suppose that isnt really the main reason. You're right, i dont really see that many threads pertaining to earth sciences, and the ones that are seem to fit correctly in the board that they are placed in.

A new forum opens when there's enough demand for it.. that is, if we see that a certain subject like EAS creates a lot of debate and warrants its own forum, such forum will probably be opened.

 

So far, though, I'm not sure I see the demand.. most debate about these subjects is spread out between the different forums quite fittingly, it seems.

there's at least two threads open about the subject, and more than a few members who think it to be a good idea. I know that isnt really demand, but it would really help to clear this prblem up.

anybody have any good quotes from some important people? I like whipping out quotes to prove points, but every once and a while i draw a blank.

nano science isn't a large enough field to call for an entirely new board. Earth science, on the other hand, is pretty important. but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen, since the admins don't really care enough to make it a priority.

there is already an astronomy board somewhere.

i kind of wish there was an earth science or geology board/forum too. most people i've seen go to the ecology section with those kinds of questions, though.

Thanks for the info !

 

What if you replace "GRB" with "nearby SN explosion" ?

A supernova? Well, being that they are less powerful than a gamma ray burst, i would expect it to be even less likely. The star would have to be much closer, and we would probably still be experiencing the effects today. Personally, i don't buy into the GRB or SN theory. I think climate change would be the most probable answer. But you never know

mine stays the same:-(

The Ordovician–Silurian extinction events are currently being intensively studied; the most commonly accepted theory is that they were triggered by the onset of a long ice age, perhaps the most severe glacial age of the Phanerozoic, in the Hirnantian faunal stage that ended the long, stable greenhouse conditions typical of the Ordovician. The event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric CO2, which selectively affected the shallow seas where most organisms lived. As the southern supercontinent Gondwana drifted over the South Pole, ice caps formed on it. The strata have been detected in late Ordovician rock strata of North Africa and then-adjacent northeastern South America, which were south-polar locations at the time. Glaciation locks up water from the world-ocean, and the interglacials free it, causing sea levels repeatedly to drop and rise; the vast shallow intra-continental Ordovician seas withdrew, which eliminated many ecological niches, then returned, carrying diminished founder populations lacking many whole families of organisms. Then they withdrew again with the next pulse of glaciation, eliminating biological diversity at each change). In the North African strata, Julien Moreau reported five pulses of glaciation from seismic sections.

This incurred a shift in the location of bottom-water formation, shifting from low latitudes, characteristic of greenhouse conditions, to high latitudes, characteristic of icehouse conditions, which was accompanied by increased deep-ocean currents and oxygenation of the bottom-water. An opportunistic fauna briefly thrived there, before anoxic conditions returned. The breakdown in the oceanic circulation patterns brought up nutrients from the abyssal waters. Surviving species were those that coped with the changed conditions and filled the ecological niches left by the extinctions.

Gamma ray burst hypothesis

Scientists from the University of Kansas and NASA have suggested that the initial extinctions could have been caused by a gamma ray burst originating from an hypernova within 6,000 light years of Earth (within a nearby arm of the Milky Way Galaxy). A ten-second burst would have stripped the Earth's atmosphere of half of its ozone almost immediately, causing surface-dwelling organisms, including those responsible for planetary photosynthesis, to be exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation. This would have killed many species and caused a drop in temperatures. While plausible, there is no unambiguous evidence that such a nearby gamma ray burst has ever actually occurred. One method would be to search the Moon for uneven exposure to gamma rays.

Adrian L. Melott estimated that gamma ray bursts from "dangerously close" supernova explosions occur two or more times every billion years, and this has been proposed as the cause of the end-Ordovician extinction.

The gamma ray burst theory sounds very unlikely. Seeing as how a gamma ray burst is the most powerful event in the universe, i wouldn't count on it being the best explaination.

to hear the media everyone who see someone nude goes blind the person who is nude dies tragically. has to be 100% true cause and effect.

lol.

Well, whatever the real statistics are, I think we can all agree that the best thing to do is treat it as the gravest threat imaginable. Lock up your children, write to your congressman, burn down some Verizon stores. Because really, won't somebody please think of the children?

it's not like it's the worst thing ever. so what, everyone gets to see your daughter's nude pics. its her own fault, and it not like anyone is really gonna care.

Btw, what the heck is your avatar? A fish that got a...ribbon stuck through it's skull? Like a christmas present?

its a darwin fish with a santa hat.

And btw, my school is on the high end of these statistics. I would say probably 65-70% of the students are involved or have been involved in sexting.

Dunno. I'd see the great challenge in parenting to be raising a child that doesn't ever fall in that 15%.

 

But then I've never actually had to raise a kid, so I may be idealistic and/or naive.

 

(On the other hand, I have listened to conversations on the school bus where middle school girls [ages 13 or so] talk about having sex with their boyfriends and sending pictures of themselves in lingerie around. That was... interesting. Oh, and the parents' response when they discovered their daughter sent pictures of herself in lingerie to some guy? Take away the phone for a month! That really works in instilling good values in your child, I'm sure.)

For a teenage girl, a month without a phone is a month without friends. I know the feeling (minus the girl part).

Merged post follows:

I think it's a tempest in a tea pot, i can remember when Polaroid was the rage, lots of girls took nudes of themselves and each other guys did too, it didn't ruin any lives or make anyone go bad. I think most of the problem is the media trying blow smoke up peoples skirts to get their attention.

also, the ability to make it available to all your friends. if i get a pic, i can have it on the internet and around the school/web/world in a matter of minutes.

well, you can't assume every teenager is going to do it. But you cant also assume that every teenager is not. I guess it's a personal choice on the parent's part. From my perspective, it doesn't seem nearly as bad. But I can also see where a parent would have a problem. oh well.

Hello,

 

I am looking for some freeware that would allow me to take a scanned topography map and run a hydrolgy analysis. I would like to simulate a rainfall to see where the runoff accumulates. I have no budget for this which is why I am asking for freeware advice. I know the answer might be a complicated process involving several small programs. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thank you

good luck. i've never heard of such a program.

The release of a Pew Research study on cellphone sex-texting by teens produced an eye-opening variety of responses from the media. A quick glance at these two widely diverging interpretations from two computer news magazines seems to bracket the range of responses pretty well:

 

PCWorld:

Sexting Study Finds Few Teens Participate

 

CNet:

'Sexting' common among teens, survey says

 

Other outlets tried to take a more objective view, such as this article at National Public Radio:

Study: 15 Percent Of Teens With Cells Receive 'Sexts'

 

And then of course there's MSNBC, nit-picking the data to find the most potentially terrifying numbers for parents:

Nearly 1 in 3 older teens gets 'sexting' messages

 

Nice! It's funny to watch this sort of thing in action sometimes. I don't know that there's anything particularly surprising or revealing about this example, but I think it illustrates the simple fact that news is a business. What do you all think?

 

http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&topic=t&ncl=dRlr3pKeSrX-7kM-K5v_2shFIjoeM

um, being of that age, i can tell you that most teens do get involved in 'sexting'. in fact, you would be hard pressed to find someone at my school who doesn't.

HOST ROCK:

the body of rock surrounding an ore body.

means the geologic medium in which the waste is emplaced, specifically the geologic materials that directly encompass and are in close proximity.

Rock which serves as a host for other rocks or for mineral deposits.

And the inbreeding issue, I think there should be, and to a certain degree is a must accompanying to any speciation event. The founder effect based on geographic isolation would still meet the same problem. But of course, any speciation is the result of the sucessful passing through of such a bottleneck.

But founder's effect only works if there's enough specimens to survive the inbreeding. Thats the point i was trying to make.

This is something of a non-sequitur.

 

Stress is not strictly a conscious process. Stress is often caused by the outside environment. If we were to apply the concept of "stress" to inanimate objects, stress is wholly a function of the environment. A bridge experiences stress as it undergoes the load of things crossing it. Stress in the lives of humans can be principally caused by outside factors.

This is how i see it. Stress itself is not the symptom, it is the environmental stimulus that bringing about the physical and emotional changes, such as anxiety or depression.

psychosomatic symptoms are very common. but using your mind to make you feel better? thats all hypothetical, since you can't prove your mindset is what is actually making you feel better.