swansont

! Moderator Note You need to summarize the video if you are going to link to it. Posting just to advertise your youtube channel is against the rules. Also: a video is not a research paper

It’s not info from Trump, it’s from the intelligence (and other) professionals. The briefings that Trump ignores unless they’re hidden in a piece of cheese.

Yes, it would speed up air replacement. The question is by how much, and that requires analysis. It could be that the Costco situation is for show, or it could have a measurable effect. Can’t tell

No, actually, it's not. You've told us what you don't mean by policy. And. you then linked to a definition that's consistent with what others are using, which isn't consistent with your secret definition. You have not made it clear what you mean, and instead blame the people asking you to clarify, for not being able to read your mind. Here you say you have a definition that differs from what CharonY used, but then link to the wikipedia definition. When I apply that definition, you tell me that's not the one you are using. But somehow your contradiction is my failing.

You simply linked to the wiki definition, which is "A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol." So nothing here is inconsistent with the definition you provided, except your insistence that it means something else that you haven't actually specified..

Yes it mentions ""Presidential Executive Orders" as an example of policy. Not as its definition. So you get to make up your own definition of a word, and we're all supposed to go with that? That's not how language works.

The fact that they are spinning it allows one to infer the policy. Or are you under the impression that WH officials go out and say whatever they want to the press, rather than having coordinated talking points?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/venus-might-not-have-much-phosphine-dampening-hopes-for-life/ “Promising sign of life on Venus might not exist after all” Repeatability can be a cruel mistress...

Add dove and dash to the list

It already has, so it probably will in the future. A significant number of people live past 100 already.

Yes, you are quite correct. Written permission, because you have something to point to if there is a subsequent disagreement.

Permission requires a response. You don't have it until they actually respond in the affirmative. (This applies to more than copyright.)

dock has been banned as a sockpuppet of redstone, Trần Thành, Energizer and the logic00x triplets

That was the graph that clearly shows temperature increasing over the last ~140 years. So no, your point doesn't stand. The animation shows that looking at only a few locations wouldn't give us an accurate read on what is happening, since there are fluctuations (i.e. weather happens) Water and land each have some specific heat capacity, so their temperature will rise or fall if the absorb or release energy. Q = mc∆T If I measure in enough places to be representative of the whole, I can sum up the Q for all those areas and figure out if heat was absorbed or emitted overall. The worldwide average ∆T is representative of that value, which (as Area54 pointed out) is easier for non-experts to grasp. Saying the global average increased by 1ºC is saying we absorbed enough energy for the whole surface to increase by 1º even though some areas saw a larger increase and some saw a smaller increase, or possibly a decrease, because this is not a system in steady-state

How do you figure that? “This animation shows monthly temperatures for January–December 2019 compared to each month's 1981-2010 average.” 1981-2010 is not considered pre-industrial by most historians

Let’s see an analysis, then. Quantify the “tiny deviations in the energy content of an atmosphere” and also the effect of pressure on the measurements. Is this a measurement of the atmosphere or the surface (i.e. land and water)? climate.gov suggests it’s the latter https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature (they also disagree the with “tiny” characterization of the energy deviations)

It was pointed put that your car analogy is poor, so you go ahead and use it again. As Area54 observed, all you are doing is attacking a strawman. Average temperature is simply a proxy for total energy content that is perhaps easier to grasp than if one used energy units. That energy is either from a source that has changed or it’s being trapped from existing sources. Science tells us it’s the latter.

But you haven’t presented evidence of this. You presented anecdotes, which are not evidence. You have not presented anything to do with evolution, nor any data over a span of time.

But your thesis is not that men and women are different, it’s that they are are not (or are less different than a few thousand years ago) “female quality” could be taken as chauvinistic, and again, your thesis is that this distinction has gone away, destroyed within 1000 years of adopting agriculture

What would that purport to show? Eliud Kipchoge is the men’s marathon record holder. Height is 5′ 6″, Weight 115 lbs. Is that above or below the average for men? How is this an example of the differences disappearing? IOW, perhaps being short and slight is an advantage in distance running, and marathon runners are not representative examples of the population. That’s OK. I didn’t watch it.

Anecdotes are not evidence, and bodybuilding (plus the possible steroids) is not evolution

The context being what it is, the comparison regarding the earth is to an earlier state, in which average temperature was roughly constant.

Not necessarily useful, true. It’s like the joke about the statistician whose head was in the oven and feet were in an ice bath, who declared “On average, I’m comfortable” But it doesn’t mean that applies to other situations. If you want to rebut the usefulness as applied to climate, you’ll have to analyze the actual problem. Your analogy is poor, and not a substitute for science. If the average temperature is going up, it means more energy is coming in than going out. Where exactly this is temperature increase is happening is unimportant if that’s what you are trying to determine.

Which is something we point out now and again. If you’re going to make a suggestion, you need to take care not to add undue burden to the staff, who would prefer to spend their time here in discussion rather than moderation duties. IOW, one should avoid being cavalier with someone else’s time. “add subforums” is extra work. Without making a case for why that’s better for staff, it’s a nonstarter.

Whichever one you want it to. You can choose your own coordinate system. You want that to be the z direction, it can be z. If you want it to be y, it can be y. You can call it the first, second or third dimension. It won’t affect the physics. (coordinate system choice will affect how hard it is to solve a physics problem, though)