Jump to content

theCPE

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by theCPE

  1. The climate models for temperature prediction are "accurate" because they are updated continually. As time progresses the model is updated to reflect the true temperature increases. The first temperature models produced during the 80s I believe had the temperatures being 5 C higher by the year 2000!!! That of course didn't happen. Basically, the models have limited range of accurate prediction since the only reason the models track with historic temperatures is because the models are constantly updated.
  2. What do you love about computers? If you like the hardware aspects of working with computers look into computer/network administration. If you like using computers for problem solving then CS is definitely what you should do. A B.S. in CS isn't too difficult. It will require a decent amount of work however. I am a Computer Engineer which means I took half electrical engineering courses (circuit design) and half software courses. I always considered semesters with more CS classes the easier semesters. There will be labs and lots of programming assignments so be prepared for that. I would consider it a safe career. CS and engineers don't typically have problems finding a job. I knew a lot of CS and CPEs that graduated with me and I can't recall any of them not finding a job. If problem solving/critical thinking is something you enjoy doing, then you'll probably like the field.
  3. Non-catholics. (which includes baptist, etc) Non-christians Id guess. Less career/education oriented people (id guess smarts play a role in this too) Looks like non-religious people. anyone I imagine, welfare / gov programs cant discriminant. Well, according to statistics less developed countries have higher birth rates. Also, less educated non-career oriented people in developed countries have higher birth rates. So....I think there might be something to your idea, but more likely I think there are other factors that play the true role of making people have less evolutionary fitness.
  4. Well, then explain what you described and yourself commented sounds "silly" is if the label utopian hippy society is wrong or off. I see no bare tree. But perhaps you can explain where capitalism has failed or where you expect it too...from my perspective it is succeeding with vigor. It seemed that most of your post focused on abolishing the ideas of structured economy specifically capitalism and shifting to (again you called it silly yourself and its your idea) an idealistic "hippy" everyone working together and geting equal shares of everything and no one is in a "rush" society. Anyone with ambition and goals is going to hate such a society. Like others have pointed out, it is an impossible task to convince people to give up what they feel is rightfully theirs through work etc. You wrote the post didn't you? Wow. You should take a pysch class in motivation. People think they are something special and deserve what they have because of the things they do through effort, creativity, work, sweat, tears, etc etc. I recognize no inherent problem with ambition within the human race. The inherent problem within the human race I recognize is the problem of multitudes of unmotivated unproductive people and how self replicating it is.
  5. Um. I didn't pin any viewpoints to any post. I posted my opinions or "my take" of his ideals. Just like prior people. If he believes I misinterpreted his post I'm sure he can point out where my opinion is wrong or something. Heh.
  6. No. Ah, a utopian hippy society...interesting. Oh dear. It isn't necessary. Of course most things in life aren't necessary. Like the computer you are using to browse the internet, none of that is necessary either. Interesting. To be honest....most of that post had me visualizing a circle of hippies sitting around a camp fire smoking marijuana and singing kumbaya. If that is your thing and you have no ambition then you are in luck. No one is forced in this country to be productive. If you don't want to be productive and you have no ambition it is perfectly ok. But then complaining about the fact that some people have goals, ambition and drive is pretty silly. Anyway, thats my take.
  7. No. If you read the in depth analysis of the protocol you will see what climate policies do to negatively effect economic growth etc. Right, so you "cite" a theory without actually citing anything and just assert the exact opposite of what the studies and links just demonstrated. See above. See above... First, that wasn't ever my assertion. My assertion was that exaggeration or misrepresentation of climate data to push policy can be detrimental to the economy. Strawman BAD!
  8. You are missing my point. My point is you asserted that people defined intelligence or THINGS for that matter in a way that ensured humans were superior. For you to make that claim simple means you disagree on the definition of intelligence. In which case what makes your definition right and not just one designed to make humans inferior? I think you were asserting humans aren't any more intelligent than other species on earth right? Then you listed YOUR reasons why you thought that way and why others were just defining intelligence so as to make humans by default more intelligent. Which is when I pointed out that with the same logic anyone can just claim you define intelligence in a way to make humans by default no more intelligent. No, your responsibility is your detrimental behaviors quote. In the quote you claimed that others defined intelligence improperly to make humans superior etc etc... That would be an ad hominem. And how is making someone realize they are saying the exact same thing as someone else just the opposite end of the spectrum being an ass. You claim anyone who says humans are more intelligent have improper definitions, well the exact same can be said of you. Then I gave you a chance to provide your definition of intelligence. That is pretty much the point of discussion forums. Why? No. It is a request to provide support to where people define THINGS in such a way that it makes humans automatically superior. You suggested that is what happens, "we define things so we are on top", so support it. I think thats another example of ad hominem that you were trying to use earlier.
  9. Here yah go: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/economic.htm http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm http://www.accf.org/publications/testimonies/test-impactkyoto-march25-1999.html http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2002/pd042502g.html http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/ahram/2001/7/1/ECON2.HTM The first one is very very detailed. Some of the others not as much. For more as usual just use google. The last one reminded me of a very interesting point. To paraphrase: The economic effects of the most industrialized countries will help developing countries become more competitive. No way... you mean there is a secondary agenda behind climate change protocols such as kyoto. Fascinating.
  10. Ok. That is exactly what my original post did, but I'll try to do it again but more straight forward. Unsubstantiated claim about humans doing more detrimental things....but I'll play along anyway. Humans have egos. Humans experience greed (among other things lust, desire, etc). Humans are ambitious. Humans have emotions. These characteristics can cause some nasty behavior. Some of these nasty behaviors are some of the things you listed above. Basically a statement like what you made above of why humans aren't intelligent just means that your definition of intelligence is different than others. So, if you wan't to make that statement please explain what your definition of intelligence is. Is it lack of ego, emotion, etc??? (<--- thats a question mark) Unsubstantiated....... Who is we. What are the arbitrary measuresments. Unsubstantiated.
  11. No, its a question hence the question mark not a statement, notice the lack of a period. So, answer the question. This is as much a strawman as your unsubstantiated comment that others define things in a way to ensure superiority. Weeee. Oh and the strawman comment about the dolphins: You being on a website questioning whether or not we are smarter than dolphins proves we are, more simply humans can question their reality. Ummmm .... no. That refers to "definitions ensure our superiority". Now if I had said something like oh you are so silly then yeh, I guess i'd have to agree with you. Oh dear. Yes but "things are defined so humans have "the most" or are "on top" is substantiated and requires no support. But you want me to support my claim so I guess I will. The fastest land mammal is the cheetah. Of course I guess i'm gonna need to cite my resources huh? That wasn't near as fun as I thought it would be
  12. Sigh. My original claim was that it is an improper assertion that current warming is DIRECTLY due to human emitted CO2. And it isn't, there are a multitude of effects. Do humans contribute to the warming, yeh, is the warming directly related to human cause, well yeh as much as it is directly related to natural causes. Saying warming is only directly related to humans and not the ENTIRE dynamic is irresponsible. As far as attacking people over "rhetoric" I can only imagine you are referring to your quote of "increased global climate". If you had read my posts and remembered my main points I'm sure you would know the "detrimental agenda" but I can repeat myself its no problem. The detrimental agenda is the damage that can and will be done to the economy by specific groups that exaggerate and misrepresent GW data to scare people. Phew.
  13. Ah, so your definition of intelligence is the lack of emotion, greed, ego, ambition? Interesting. So while you assert some people define intelligence in a way to ensure superiority, you define intelligence in a way to ensure inferiority. You just did. No we don't, thats silly. Human's aren't the fastest, strongest, quickest, most agile etc etc the list really could go on forever. Discussions about intelligence especially comparing human intelligence to other species are always fun. As far as the original topic about evolution in developed countries: Adaption and evolution still occur. Natural selection still occurs. The degree and result of their occurrence can be questioned though.
  14. Haha, ok this is fun. Right, I have no issue with the data. I have issue with the representation of the data by some groups with a specific detrimental agenda.
  15. It isn't too difficult to look it up yourself but ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming There are plenty of historical graphs for both CO2 and temperature there. Note, for the references please see the bottom of the page as the IPCC is listed several times since that is the holy grail for environmentalist I'm sure that is necessary or the data is just make-believe. Further the first paragraph of the link explains the 100 year warming trend we have had 1.33 +- .32 degrees. The main "idea" to take away from the articles is that the CO2 concentration plots DO NOT follow the temperature trends, which is my point. Right. Ok, before things get too off tilt: I didn't say water vapor was causing the INCREASE in global temperature. I said it is the MAJORITY contributor to GW. Something I have noticed is that the definition of GW is different for some people. GW is the process by which a planet/celestial body is warmed due to the atmosphere. The "natural" fluctuation of our planets temperature is DUE mostly too how much water vapor is in the atmosphere, however YES the current additional average temperature isn't due to water vapor but other extra greenhouse gases such as CO2. Of course, increases in water vapor in the atmosphere can add to increased average temperature as well (the feedback you are referring too). In summary, i'm not saying water vapor is why we have experienced a 1 degree temperature increase the past century. I'm saying that the greenhouse gas that is most abundant and facilitates GW the most is water vapor. After all GW is a natural process. Perhaps you are reading it wrong. I'll attempt to rephrase. Without the existence of humans the planet earth would not have a flat line average global temperature over time correct? My point was that the natural fluctuation that earth experienced before industrialization had a specific magnitude (imagine a sine wave). The past century warming that has occurred if plotted would closely fit the trends over time. Unlike of course if you observe the natural CO2 fluctuations and current increases. The only point I have been trying to make is that the focus and emphasis is always put on CO2 concentrations, why? Because it makes the global situation seem much more dire. The problem is that they are not 1 to 1 trends. In closing I just want to make a few points I guess. As with most things, being too idealistic or extreme on either end of a spectrum is not a good thing. Outright denying that humans effect greenhouse gas levels and thus global climate is ridiculous and extreme. However, exaggerating or misleadingly using data to "scare" people is extreme and wrong too. The damage to the environment does need to be mitigated, but idealistic ideas or attempts at returning earth to how it was prior to industrialization is absurd.
  16. Google historical global temperature or something similar. In the past century we have warmed about 1 degree on average. Look at the historical ups and down swings in temperature. Ah, so scaring through dramatization and exaggeration is ok, but not lying. Right, I'm sure the kyoto protocol would not have had any negative effects on our economy. Further, here is another example of my previous point. "our likelihood of survival." Again with the dramatization and exaggeration. We have seen temperatures increase 1 degree in a century and now we are all going to die...... ok. I've watched gore's pathetic "documentary" have you? If you have you truly aren't going to deny the use of dramatization and exaggeration he utilized to "scare" people. Everything was good, until "detrimental to our survival...." Again with the exaggeration!!! There have been FAR bigger temperature swings historical (you know ice ages and stuff) than the 1 degree swing we have had over the past century. I feel like a broken record but again....the dramatization and exaggeration that "you guys" just can't do without when it comes to "scaring" or convincing everyone that we are "destroying" the world. It is apparently way too much to ask that the facts be explained that yep, humans have helped speed up the natural temperature fluctuations without doomsday prophecy.....
  17. Correct. No, CO2 emitted by humans does effect global temperature as I posted previously. The amount due to human emitted CO2 and the amount that is natural is what is important. Further, the correlation between increase in CO2 and increase in temperature is even MORE important. It isn't 1 to 1, not even close. Over the past century we have had temperature increases in line with prior century temperature increases before the industrial age, even though we do currently have higher CO2 concentrations. It is frustrating that groups with agenda's other than that of the environment focus on CO2 concentrations plots as opposed to temperature increase plots. Again, they are not 1 to 1, thus why it is misleading, and intentionally so. And that is the mentality that too me is bad yet common among "environmentalist". You basically are suggesting that lying to people so that they agree to do something that has the potential for benefits is ok. First, the potential benefits are too the environment, at the expense of the economy. So you have both advantages and disadvantages by "tricking" people into doing what one group wants for monetary reasons. Secondly, the point of science isn't to manipulate and corral society at your whim which is precisely what the mentality is for lying and misleading people with GW data.
  18. It is incorrect to assert that current global temperature increases are a direct result of human emitted CO2. The dynamic is far too complex than to simple state that only CO2 emitted by humans causes the increased warming. Evident by data from past centuries CO2 fluctuations have always occurred, even prior to the industrial age. Therefore, it is only logical that natural CO2 emissions are not constant. As far as can be determined human emitted CO2 DOES add greenhouse gases and thus increase warming potential. Asserting however that only human emitted CO2 is the cause or that the warming is DIRECTLY a result of human produced CO2 is wrong. Before this gets too long and turns into a huge tangent from the OP's intent, my biggest complaints about the majority of the "environmental" crowd and folks that back silly things like the Kyoto protocol is the misstatement of facts to "scare" people.
  19. First, I don't know what increase in global climate means. Could you explain to me how you can experience more climate. And secondly, that is an incorrect statement to begin with.
  20. GW is not primarily due to CO2. GW is primarily due to water vapor.
  21. Its a thought experiment, that usually goes as follows: If you have twins and one leaves earth in a spaceship at near the speed of light, when he returns to earth he is much younger than his earth bound twin. It is due to a concept called time dilation, which was verified using tau particles and a particle accelerator. Relativity is very interesting to read about and you can find many descriptive explanations using google for general information about relativity.
  22. Of course not, didn't say you did. The way you calculate the two are similar. All my prior posts were aimed at clarify some misconceptions or whatever someone else posted about escape velocity, hence my focus on escape velocity.
  23. Yes, orbital velocity and escape velocity are different. I was making clarifications about escape velocity because there were some misconceptions going on. But its a similar idea. You find the velocity at which the projectile travels parallel to the surface enough per unit time to completely negate the distance it is pulled toward the surface based on the gravitational constant etc. Orbit velocities depend of course on the orbit altitude as well. Fore specific examples and equations try googling the two.
  24. Thats what escape velocity refers to. Speed required for the projectile to leave whatever planet/object without any force, if you fire a projectile horizontally escape velocity is the concept to determine the projectile's fate.
  25. Isn't upwards parallel to gravity? You fire the projectile parallel to the surface, perpendicular to the center of gravity. You can put the projectile in orbit with a parallel trajectory to the surface. Escape velocity just requires you to travel parallel to the surface fast enough that as the moon/planet gravity pulls you back to the surface you keep "missing" it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.