Double K

My first concern would be if it was blue-green algae in which case it's a dangerous type of algae. You should just have a sample lab tested to make sure of what it is; But I would think it's more likely green algae (of which there are 7000+ species)- Green algae (Chlorophyta). The green algae, or Chlorophyta, occur in freshwater, although some live in the sea. Most green algae are single-celled and microscopic (able to be seen only under a microscope), forming the slimy green scum found in stagnant ponds. Others are larger and more complex, forming spherical (round) colonies composed of many cells or occurring as straight or branched filaments (long, thin series of cells). Green algae are thought to be in the evolutionary line that gave rise to the first land plants. Read more: Algae - humans, body, used, water, process, Earth, life, plants, type, chemical, form, energy, animals, carbon, oxygen, air, cells, cause, primary http://www.scienceclarified.com/A-Al/Algae.html#ixzz0oRQ22wfG

I'm certainly not disputing this, coal and oil power plants are also unsustainable and just plain stupid. It may be true that there is no real option other than nuclear, but I would hope that we switch to it, and then make headway towards cleaner/safer/better power production rather than another 100 years of reliance on something thats also not sustainable in the long term. I wish I knew the answer to this problem, I would certainly be a gazillionaire if I did. Surely there is a way to harness the power of the earth, low head turbines in rivers & oceans, solar, wind...there simply has to be a better way!

Theres some good footage and images about Troll at the following link. I saw this documentary just the other night, it's an amazing structure. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/engineering-connections/3334/Photos#tab-Videos/05318_00

The threat of meltdown would always be a possibility, just reasonably easily mitigated with decent safety systems, but still always possible. For a risk vs reward scenario I'm not sure the reward outweighs the risk.. I understand the technology has improved but nuclear just scares the bejebus out of me.

Pretty impressive, but the cable stays are doing all the work, it's too slender to get much stiffness out of the cylindrical tower.

Belief in God as Three-in-One is as old as Christianity itself.1 The word Trinity doesn’t appear as a theological term till near the end of the second century. It was first used as ‘Trias’ by Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioch in AD. 180 and later by Tertullian as Trinitas2 to signify that God exists in three persons. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2454

But are you learning to better yourself, or society? I think most people do that for themselves and it just so happens to benefit society. If they don't (crime for example) it's called anti-social behaviour. But it doesnt make them ignorant, in fact one might say they are more enlightened as they have a knowledge that you don't. This is where there needs to be a disconnect from right and wrong, observing without judgement is integral to knowledge... For example, a counterfitter may know much about the material used in the original, styles, fonts, and how to reproduce these things. That is knowledge! Just because it wont benefit society does not make it any less valuable, it's simply anti-social, and I don't think you can meld the two. Just because one knows (or doesn't know) something that doesn't benefit others, or doesn't advance society does not make one ignorant. The key root of ignorant being ignore - hence as long as you are attempting to learn you are not ignorant, regardless of the benefits of the acquired knowledge.

Oh I'm by no means saying that coal is a better option. My main concern with nuclear is that the half life of the waste is really a legacy for many many future generations to have to store and deal with. There was a recent documentary about a reactor waste storage facility in a European town (Ukraine or something?) where water was seeping into the (now very old) storage facility. If this water is contaminated, and then makes its way to groundwater, you have a very large problem if the groundwater is contaminated, this is really a very very bad situation. The problem with Nuclear, is not it's emissions whilst it's running but that the contamination is far far more immediately deadly, and far longer for the environment to recover from. It essentially salts the earth for 50-80 years, causes mutations and cancers, and all sorts of nasty nasty. I am also old enough to remember Chernobyl and although technology and safety/reliability of nuclear reactors has advanced greatly, the price of a catastrophic failure is simply an unacceptable risk (in my opinion) The only way that this would be acceptable is to launch the waste into space, but then what happens if the launch goes wrong and we scatter irradiated cooling rods across half a state...that's also not good.

There we go, solar updraft tower.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower The solar updraft tower is a proposed type of renewable-energy power plant. It combines three old and proven technologies: the chimney effect, the greenhouse effect, and the wind turbine. Air is heated by sunshine and contained in a very large greenhouse-like structure around the base of a tall chimney, and the resulting convection causes air to rise up the updraft tower. This airflow drives turbines, which produce electricity. A successful research prototype operated in Spain in the 1980s, and many modelling studies have been published as to optimization, scale, and economic feasibility.

If we're going wild theories then what about geothermal? No waste... Also, I heard of an experiment of a giant "chimney" structure filled with turbines with a 'greenhouse' shade structure beneath it so as to promote wind flow thru the chimney...they made scale models of it which worked quite well...cant for the life of me remember what it was called tho I'll see what I can dig up

Nuclear is hardly "clean". The waste from this energy source will impact the environment for much longer than we can conceive... Nuclear is not currently a sustainable nor "clean" energy and I would never support the acceptance of waste in my country, not the acceptance of a nuclear power station.

I can't help but see the "root" here as simple & "fantastic" (ie. the term being used from sci-fi or fiction directly) Lets just break the word down quickly, Adamant 1. unshakable in purpose, determination, or opinion; unyielding •To create a noun denoting act, office, condition, or character, add the suffixes -(t)ium, -monium, -tas, -tus, -(t)ia, -ina to the noun stem.

Sorry this is a bit lengthy, I tried trimming it back, but found every time I did it led to ambiguity or misrepresenting of the context, and so I paste it undoctored for you (although be aware that it is select paragraphs, as the entire document is quite large) see below for the link to the source... I thought this relevant and something that (both sides) could employ to everyone's benefit. Such critical skills, grounded in knowledge, include: (i) the ability to form an opinion for oneself, (5) which involves, for example, being able to recognize what is intended to mislead, being capable of listening to eloquence without being carried away, and becoming adept at asking and determining if there is any reason to think that our beliefs are true; (ii) the ability to find an impartial solution, (6) which involves learning to recognize and control our own biases, coming to view our own beliefs with the same detachment with which we view the beliefs of others, judging issues on their merits, trying to ascertain the relevant facts, and the power of weighing arguments; (iii) the ability to identify and question assumptions, (7) which involves learning not to be credulous, applying what Russell calls constructive doubt in order to test unexamined beliefs, and resisting the notion that some authority, a great philosopher perhaps, has captured the whole truth. .... ....The mere possession of critical skills is insufficient to make one a critical thinker. Russell calls attention to various dispositions which mean that the relevant skills are actually exercised. Typically, he uses the notion of habit (sometimes the notion of practice) to suggest the translation of skills into actual behaviour. Russell describes education as the formation, by means of instruction, of certain mental habits [and a certain outlook on life and the world]. (15) He mentions, in particular: (i) the habit of impartial inquiry, (16) which is necessary if one-sided opinions are not to be taken at face value, and if people are to arrive at conclusions which do not depend solely on the time and place of their education; (ii) the habit of weighing evidence, (17) coupled with the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true; (iii) the habit of attempting to see things truly, (18) which contrasts with the practice of merely collecting whatever reinforces existing prejudice; and (iv) the habit of living from one's own centre, (19) which Russell describes as a kind of self-direction, a certain independence in the will. Such habits, of course, have to be exercised intelligently. Russell recognizes clearly, indeed it is a large part of the problem which critical thinking must address, that one becomes a victim of habit if the habitual beliefs of one's own age constitute a prison of prejudice. Hence the need for a critical habit of mind......... ........what Russell typically calls one's readiness, to act and respond in various ways. His examples include: (i) a readiness to admit new evidence against previous beliefs, (20) which involves an open-minded acceptance (avoiding credulity) of whatever a critical examination has revealed; (ii) a readiness to discard hypotheses which have proved inadequate, (21) where the test is whether or not one is prepared in fact to abandon beliefs which once seemed promising; and (iii) a readiness to adapt oneself to the facts of the world, (22) which Russell distinguishes from merely going along with whatever happens to be in the ascendant, which might be evil. To be ready to act, or react, in these ways suggests both an awareness that the habits in question are appropriate and a principled commitment to their exercise. They have in common the virtue Russell called truthfulness, which entails the wish to find out, and trying to be right in matters of belief. (23)........ ..........Russell also makes it clear in many places that it is one thing to know, for example, the principle that belief should be proportioned to the evidence, and quite another to know what the actual evidence is. Russell, as we have seen, stresses access to impartial sources of knowledge; without such access, our critical abilities cannot function. source

Meditations : Marcus Aerilius A Game of Thrones (series of 7): George R. R. Martin Glamorama: Brett Easton Ellis 1984: Orwell

That's not as easy to answer as you would like to think... I guess what I'm not looking for, is anything politicised. I would prefer to see analysis of data, analysis of modelling methods, and scientific method, not just discussion but empirical analysis.

Speaking of peer review on GW science, can anyone point me to some good articles regarding peer review, preferable unbiased if it's possible to find such a thing on the subject. I have been looking on google but it seems papers are all either end of the extreme, so if anyone can shunt me to some "reliable" or more specifically "objective" peer review I'd appreciate it.

With anatomy, if you arent sure Latin really helps you out. latin prefixes and suffixes Endo - in (as in endoscopy, endothermic) Exo - out (exoskeleton, exostential, exothermic) Edit: Oh right, I didnt read your question properly either, sorry... Endosteum, has a microscopic structure similar to the periosteum, lining the medullary cavity. More specifically, endosteum covers the bones internal surfaces, including the inner surfaces of compact bone and trabecular bone surfaces. because of the role of the endosteum (and periosteum) being implicit in the manufacture of new bone, and nutrition of the bone organ, I think you could safely assume it is present in all bones (although its not something I've ever wondered, so thanks for raising the question it's always good to get some extra knowledge!) "The periosteum and endosteum are a source of new bone-forming cells (osteoprogenitor cells) and are described as possessing osteogenic potential. The periosteum and endosteum are also involved in bone repair after injury. Blood vessels of the periosteum and endosteum are involved in nutrition of the bone. " http://www.technion.ac.il/~mdcourse/274203/lect5.html

Just further on Boethius, just to further on the coincidence level... He was one of the early ones to postulate on the problem of universals: The problem of universals is about their status; as to whether universals exist independently of the individuals of whom they can be predicated or if they are merely convenient ways of talking about and finding similarity among particular things that are radically different. This has led philosophers to raise questions like, if they exist, do they exist in the individuals or only in people's minds or in some separate metaphysical domain? Questions like these arise from attempts to account for the phenomenon of similarity or attribute agreement among things.[3] For example, living grass and some apples are similar, namely in having the attribute of greenness. The issue, however, is how to account for this and related facts. The problem was introduced to the medieval world by Boethius, by his translation of Porphyry's Isagoge. It begins: For the moment, I shall naturally decline to say, concerning genera and species, whether they subsist, whether they are bare, pure isolated conceptions, whether, if subsistent, they are corporeal or incorporeal, or whether they are separated from or in sensible objects and other related matters. This sort of problem is of the very deepest and requires more extensive investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals#Medieval_nominalism

Interestingly enough, break it down into numbers descrying letters of the alphabet and you get jepepj, which when I googled it pointed me to Boethius Also in 520, Boethius was working to revitalize the relationship between the Church in Rome and the Church in Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boethius

It appears there is as much guilt implicit from both sides. This has not been demonstrated throughout the thread by the "scientific" community here.

Worth repeating. Indeed, hrm yes, indeed. I also can't force you not to be an abraisive prick, oh well, lose lose eh? Besides the fact you've "tried" at nothing except discrimination, and comments that belittle in order to excert your authority on the position. Not one of you has actually addressed science in your posts, yet focused on attacking me. Integrity of climate science? I guess you guys are shining examples of exactly why I wouldnt take it at face value.

No, it isnt. No data is provided in this post, just postulation and assertion that the model is correct. pot.kettle.black what evidence? where is it? citation needed. yawn. seriously. yawn. You mean the scientific publications that you get upset about when I start analysing and showing problems with their scientific method? Or different ones that you havent presented as evidence? I never said this. Go back and read, seriously read, and think, uncloud your mind of the effluent you so easily trot out, and read what my points have been about, this has not once been my central point. Battlestar gallactica much? Actually, reality is the only thing that will prevail here, as reality wont give a frak what your model says either. Troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll cry cry cry cry cry Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou're obviously too special to realise that a logical falicy is a circular argument meaning that BOTH SIDES are incorrect. Sheez, should I spell it for you in pictograms?

Let me reiterate: A logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise; The GW model supporters propose simply that their model is correct because it has been presented by scientists. You are still missing the point, I'm guessing ego does this, that the debate is not simply about the science used to derive your beloved model. I suggest that you yourself display bias in aligning with the scientific model as you have a background in science, and for you, this is how you build your construct of reality. That's fine, however you can't force this same construct on everyone as they all have different experiences from which they mould their thoughts. I actually also have science background, but mine is an applied science, and I question the validity of the model, and you yourself have alluded to the fact that there are discrepencies with the calcs (even someone on this forum was able to find strange errors, as postulated by yourself.) I propose to you that the GW model was never presented to the public in a scientific manner, and therefore the Vicious Cycle began at the presentation by begging the question and launching the model off the back of authority rather than treating the community as adult enough to present the data in a fashion that could be understood. The scientific community displays social bias towards their peer group, and yet denegrates, tirades, and "trotts out" at anyone who displays the same social bias from the other side of the argument. Actually I dont really care what label you wish to put on me, if that makes you feel more secure you go ahead and do that, I know what I believe and I don't need to align myself to either for or against to retain my attitude regarding that. In fact, your labelling methodology only goes to solidify my certainty that science reacts like a petulant child to criticism and therefore should be regarded as one, and observed to make sure it's doing the right thing. "The general function of labels are widely known and recognized as a method of distinction that helps people recognize one product from another. In social terms, labels represent a way of differentiating and identifying people that is considered by many as a form of prejudice and discrimination. Overview of the sociological labelling theory When a majority of people hold a certain point of view towards a certain group, that point of view becomes a stereotype. That stereotype affects the way other people perceive the groups in question and the result is a 'label' that is metaphoricaly imposed on the members of the group in question. A member of a targeted group is thus 'labeled' by the larger society, and along with it, the nuances underlying the label, be it positive or negative, that aids in the formation of social stereotypes." http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Labeling By the way isnt discrimination against ROA? The interesting ponderance being, that I really have read very little, in fact next to nothing, of "climate change denier" (OOOOH HERETICS!! OOOGA BOOGA!!) arguments, all of the points I have brought up were my very own observations, so I find it interesting that you say I spout off "typical climate denier trottings" or whatever you want to call them, yet have been exposed to almost none of them. Very very interesting.

So you could liken it in a way to a centrifuge, in which case...at worst it would just wobble as it slows down and then fall on its side...or just stop spinning all together. Likening it to a spinning ice skater, the closer they bring their arms the faster the spin, and when the mass shifts out they slow down. I guess this depends on if there is a "centre" of the universe about which all other entities spin...but at worst they arent going to implode and reverse direction sucked back in to the middle, it would just stop expanding

is this because you can liken the expanding universe to a torque curve, some point at which it must have a sudden sharp decline? just a thought...