theCPE

Have you ever taken physics or a "real" science class where you have to understand the mathematics involved?

Yeh...Id wager ive taken more hours of science/engineering courses than you....but that isn't the point.

If you really want proof that 1.2% is incorrect, all you have to look at one of the premises, "man produces 40% of CO2"

From sources I have read I have gathered those percentages, as someone else linked, you can find different values from different sources...from 70% to 97% for water vapor....

further down in the wiki article is this quote:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 90%

I have no idea if 1.2% is accurate...but what I do know is 90% is complete bullshit and any fool that tries to suggest that currently man is causing 90% of GW doesn't understand the terminology or the process. I will once again prove why shortly, more quotes from you coming.

Humans have produced 99% of the observed increase in CO2. Volcanoes have produced about 1% of this

Let me point out how statistics (or in this case data) can be molded to say what you want. The paper compares total CO2 output of humans to volcanoes. The problem with that comparison is that everything within human activity is included and not just the burning of fossil fuels. Why does it matter? Well obviously some things that humans do to produce CO2 just can't be stopped....well as long as we want to live that is. Of course you didn't catch this, because the numbers support what you are saying...thus you don't question them.

Also, as I've tried to explain over and over again, an increase in CO2 causes an increase in water vapor. That 97% water vapor is actually caused by human activities through a feedback system that has been observed and is very well-understood.

From all of my research, including reading the wiki article people are linking.....it is temperature increases that causes a feedback and introduces extra water vapor. And the link you provided was to buy a book...that isn't very helpful. If it is temperature and not co2 that cuases the water vapor feedback loop it is a moot point as we have seen a 1 degree temperature increase in the past century compared to much larger swings historically.

Btw how is it that you assume this one guy knows better then the entire scientific community? You're just trying to appeal to authority, "well my source is better then yours." I would contend that several thousand scientists have a much better handle on things then this guy.

Well prove where he is wrong? I liked his resource because of the simplicity and the excellent mathematical breakdown. Which you can't provide a source doing the same from your coveted IPCC....I mean if a thousand scientists with all the correct answers can't provide an equally simplistic and easy to follow explanation what gives?

So in conclusion....you are still championing that 90% of GW is currently a result of man.

Lets talk about that.

GW as I have shown with links from the EPA is ALL sources whether human or natural that create a warming of the planet so that life can exist.

If you are suggesting that 90% of our current average surface temperature of 55 F is due to man you are ridiculusly wrong and confused.

However, I have a feeling the number is either being misquoted by you or was misleading in its original context.

To arrive at a 90% number the qualification would have to be temperature increases from some X historical average. Meaning if the historical average is 55 F, humans are currently responsible for 90% of the 1 degree average surface temperature increase. Of course the reason it is worded IMPROPERLY and in the misleading way of "90% of GW (which once again is the entire warming of the planet from ice block to 55F) is due to man" is for shock value and to scare people who can't think on their own.

Right.....

And you have yet, well you or klb or anyone for that matter to point out any flaws in the numbers I provided which clearly show that the numbers you are saying are bogus.

Further, the little chart means absolutely nothing, I want the equations, the mathematical breakdown.....

Till then my numbers stand...as saying "that is bullshit" like you did without even suggesting why just wont cut the mustard.

CO2 3% of GW

water vapor 97%

man produces 40% of CO2

.4*.03= 1.2%

Feel free to show where this is wrong.

N-type (nfets, nmos, etc) utilize electrons as charge carriers.

P-type (pfets, pmos, etc) utilize holes as charge carriers.

Holes are not as mobile or effecient at transporting charge and therefore n-type semiconductors are "stronger" or "faster".

For example in CMOS, the width of a pfet is always made larger than a corresponding nfet to create equal pull up and pull down strengths.

Currently man is causing over 90% of global warming, and this comes with a 90% certainty . Previously we have not had nearly as great of an influence on global warming. Before 1950 it was about 64% to 84%. Recently though (after the mid-to-late 1970s), human influences have been an entire order of magnitude grater then non-human influences. Saying that all of global warming sense 1900 has been 90% caused by humans is however incorrect.

If you are going to throw around incredulous absurdities like that the you better be prepared to site sources, show some math, give an explanation. That is bogus crap and I have already demonstrated why simply.

There is no way man was causing nearly 85% of GW before 1950, that sentence alone makes me question even the simplest understanding of the science of GW that you may have.

Either you still do not understand the definition of GW and should visit that EPA link I provided earlier....or you are misreading articles from the IPCC. Either way it is a proven fact that without natural GW our planet would be 50C cooler, it doesn't take a mathematician to realize that 85% of such a number is not even approached by man made causes........

This only gets more humorous.

You assuming that genetic predispositions are automatically going to forbid that sort of change/adaptation phenomenon.

I've actually been arguing agaisn't predisposition entirely....

Ok I'll try to find a link for this later, but there was an experiment that supports my point.

Ferrets were once used in a test where the nerves of the audio and visual sensory organs (eyes and ears) were switched destinations in the brain. Meaning the visual info was going to the audio processing and the audio was going to the visual processing. After some acclimation the ferrets were able to see, but not well. They only had worse vision than the a normal ferret. The brain is adaptable and plastic but it has limits based on its genetic and epigenetic specialization mechanisms, and the fact that nerve cells grow more slowly than other cells in the body, at some point they basically stop growing all together.

Right, but given equal time with swapped "sensing" as with proper sensing and the degeneration would be larger if not completely reduced.

The original topic wasn't "how many limbs can a human control" but "what are the most intelligent non-human animals", so I don't think we can be too faulted for getting sidetracked.

Yeh good point, its all my fault!

The example of the millipede just shows that having a brain that is 'intellectually sophisticated' isn't necessary to controlling ridiculous amounts of limbs. If anything it argues against your statement that humans could control more limbs than any other animal.

What?? No way, it argues with me! Others are suggesting there is something special about the animals that control multiple limbs....and that isn't true, just because we only have 4 doesn't mean that is all we can control...look at the millipede...its got "shit" for brains and can control bagillions;)

But if we might digress back to something like the original topic, here's a question that might be relevant. Just what makes a human 'intelligent'? If we can establish that, perhaps we can see why we classify animal A as more intelligent than animal B.

The best definition of intelligence I have ever read is the ability to make very accurate predictions.

A human is therefore the intellectual superior because of are amazing prediction capabilities. We can make such accurate predictions that we can manipulate our environments to such a greater extent too any other animal.

The answer to the original question isn't an animal that controls lots of legs (like the octupi person suggested) but one of the apes, chimp or gorilla (not sure which is the actually most intelligent but you get my meaning).

Yeh, it would be nice to be able to say one is right but again, that assumes a universal reference and there isn't one.

Of course for the twin paradox you can KNOW the right answer if you perform the experiment the conventional way. They both need initial reference frames that are the same...earth, then one travels one doesn't, upon arriving home the answer of whom was right, A or B (since both saw the other as having dilated time) becomes obvious...the one that didn't leave earth.

Some of it is acclamation, some of it is genetic predisposition.

Once again.....if this is true a person couldn't learn to use things that they weren't born with...and that has been shown over and over again to be false.

A number of tenticles is entirly different.

Eh? Maybe from the beginning I wasn't clear....we aren't attaching tentacles to a person...we are attaching extra arms.

I have to point out that we are both making assumptions, thought they are all based on facts we can't possibly know what would happen untill we stick a human brain in an Octopus body and see what he can do.

I don't think it is an assumption that the brain's limitation is its throughput. The limit of its throughput is its frequency and memory capacity.

Actually, the prosthetics resemble a human limb much more than they do an octopus limb. An octopus limb is not supported by bone and potentially has an infinite number of points of articulation. A human limb has a very finite number of points of articulation.

 

And I'm a woman, by the way.

Oops, Gal.

The prosthetics point, as well as the tongue point is that our brain learns to use things it wasn't predisposed to use. Further, I wasn't suggesting we attach tentacles to a person....I was explaining how a human could easily control 8 apendages given the time to develop the neural pathways and feedback circuitry.

The number of joints or articulation points isn't important, it comes down to how many muscles are connected to the brain; the brain doesn't control pivot points or joints, it controls muscles.

but that does not mean we can teach a ferret to play football or sing opera.

 

The problem as I see it is why then cant an chimp go an get a job as a ceo the same as a person, because it has dumb neurons and our exactly copies of such neurons are just some how different?

Huh? How is muscular feedback to a brain equivalent too a ferret playing football, or a chimpanzee becoming a ceo?

I kinda don't know where things are going here....

I guess I don't need to link the tongue thing.

I think we are getting away from the original idea of a person controlling more than 4 apendages.

I suppose that a millipede has some super awesome really amazing coordination center in its microscopic neural net brain:)

It really is all about throughput....there is no special processing activity, no way a brain knows what the source of the signal is, it just chugs along. Just like the octupus brain, our brain has no idea the number of apendages we have.

I don't know what else to say:confused:

Ok, I think I might see what you are asking now.

When A and B pass each other they both observe the other as being the one with slower time whether they both are moving the same velocity or one is stationary and the other is moving a high velocity (large fraction of light).

And you want to know which one is right?

Well the answer is of course the name of the theory. It is relative. They both feel they are right and they both are; relative to their reference point the other is the one experiencing the time dilation.

As far as a universal reference frame you keep referring too; it doens't exist. There is no universal reference frame.

Maybe that is helpful?

See with their taste buds? Did I miss something?

Oh, haha, earlier I was talking to someone else about the amazing feats that our brain was capable of in adapting and acclaimating to new systems.

Researchers have used a pad to place on a blind person's tonque and using tiny impulses on the taste buds acting as "radar" the blind person learned to see and could reach out and grab door knobs, coke cans, etc.

The point being that our brains can do far more than what it was genetically predisposed to do.

The brain develops in a set way, each persons brain (barring abnormalities or mutations) develops in a bilateraly symetric way to correspond with the operation and controll of different parts of the body.

Yeh...the brain is acclaimating to the feedback circuits it is experiencing. If what you were saying was true than people wouldn't be able to learn to control prothetics, or the example I just gave about seeing with taste buds....

Also prostetics are built in the image of already existing human limbs, we can learn to use them because they are copy of our natural limbs.

The prosthetics don't have muscles and hardly resemble a human limb. It once again is all about acclaimating to the feedback provided by the prosthetic. And AGAIN the taste bud thing, along with other interesting feats the previous guy pointed out would not be possible if what you are saying is accurate.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

oh and also from the epa site....

Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

Yeh, this is a waste of time.

If you are doubting what the definition of global warming is or that natural global warming is necessary for our planet to sustain life.....then you have a lot to understand before this debate can even continue.

Here is a link from the epa...read about the first two paragraphs...

there you will read that greenhouse gases and GW are necessary for life as we know it......

Sigh.

The difference in structure is the muscles, the organs, the architecture of the nervous system. The functionality of the brain is not changed, the performance obviously is though.

You know the brain doesn't know what is connected to it...

The brain doesn't know it has X apendages or Y organs.

The brain has connections with a bunch of STUFF as far as it is concerned, and it receives feedback from the few output signals it generates, and from this activity it produces a controlled coordinated behaviour.

Nothing at all about this functionality suggests that a limited number of apendages can be attached to a specific brain. For all the human brain knows, it does have 8 apendages, the arms, legs, and 5 organs.

I don't know how else to explain....there is nothing different about the muscles of an apendage and the muscles of the diaphram to the brain....just the signals it receives as feedback......

Like a DSP chip.... the frequency and memory determines its performance at processing its input signals not whether or not there are 8 or 2 different streams.

The banning of smoking in indoor public places is hardly everywhere. Doesn't that leave the entire great outdoors for smoking?

I am not sure I understand what twin scenario you are trying to suggest causes SR logical problems?

If the twin doesn't come back then you can't compare the ages, which has nothing to do with whether or not SR still holds up, you just can't complete the experiment so to speak. The acceleration of the traveling twin isn't what causes them to age slower, it is the velocity.

But like I said, I can't really tell what you are saying, rephrase?

Ummm??? Saw what??? Stopping global warming simply means eliminating our contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere such that the earth's temperatures stop getting warmer.

No, the popular definition of global warming became human caused warming of our planetary temperatures during the 1980s. Global warming is a natural process by which the atmosphere of the planet allows the planet to warm and thus not be a block of ice.

There really is very little in the latest of any of the posts from GW advocates that has anything to do with science or explanations. Just the same ole IPCC, peer reviewed, DOOM IS HERE, crap.

I am still waiting for the made up numbers I presented to be explained where and how they are false. And I am still waiting for a mathematical explanation of how man causes 90% of GW according to whomever that was....

If you woke up tomorrow with tentacles at first your brain would be trying to move them like the were arms and legs. Eventually you would become more proficient in their use, but your brain is predisposed to operate only four appendages, none of which are tentacles so you would not be able to use them as proficiently as an animal born to have tentacles.

I don't think I have ever suggested that upon immediate attachment 8 arms/tentacles could be manipulated as effeciently by a human as the octupus. I have in fact said numerous times it requires acclaimation. If a person can learn to use taste buds to see learning to control 8 tentacles/arms should not be a problem. Obviously people were not predisposed to see with their taste buds, and yet the brain can learn to do it, amazing.

Its actually a very simple concept to grasp. Its not a matter of how many muscles you have its what your brain is designed to operate.

It is a simple concept. The brain works through feedback loops from muscles, organs, etc that it sends signals too. In fact the vast majority of neural activity is not output from the brain, but feedback going into the brain. The brain acclaimates to what signals it is receiving and what the feedback changes too as it sends signals, it learns and adapts. Just like people can learn to control prosthetics, they weren't genetically predisposed to control those either, and yet somehow they can. The shaky assumption is that the brain controls things it was predisposed to control.

The brain is a memory with variations in associative levels. The memory block sends outputs as well as receives massive amounts of feedback from its VAST connections to the outside world (the muscles and organs of the body). The only limitation of a brain in controlling apendages, organs, and being coordinated is the throughput abilities of that brain and nervous system. There is no predisposition of animal brains for a specified number of limbs.

I don't think anyone wants to ban smoking anywhere that isn't your own home.

And the comparison between cars and smoking is still silly.

I have never had an exhaust pipe bellowing fumes at me throughout the course of a meal.

But like I said earlier, the establishments can make the choice of whether to allow smoking or not, and I can avoid restaraunts or whatever if I don't wanna put up with it.

Work place is a different story though.

Here is another way of looking at this:

The coordination storage capacity and accuracy of the two organisms.

What is more difficult...coordinating 8 tentacles that wiggly around and grab things.

Or coordinating 4 apendages, and standing up right and balancing without falling. Running all out at near 20mph without losing the balance. Hand and eye coordination to catch things that are going very fast, to hit baseballs that are going 90mph, etc etc.

The coordination abilities of a human far surpass those of an octupus.

TO equate intelligence in a compare and contrast to human beings is basically then attempting to ignore this.

I think it is ok to use ourselves as the measuring stick of intelligence, until a bear walks up and tells me he is tired of that and would prefer I considered things from his point of view:)

And area of a brain doesn't relate to more specialized processing, it relates to more memory storage. If you are correct and a larger portion of the bear brain is strictly for smell, that means more memory is used for smell than say, understanding shakespear.

If something is genetically predisposed to have eight appendages than its brain will be genetically predisposed to accommodate them!

No way!

An arm or tentacle or whatever isn't connected to the brain on that level of abstraction. It is connected to the brain/nervous system on the muscle level. Therefore, the brain doesn't see it as "ok ive got 8 arms attached", it sees "ive got 4,324 muscles attached."

A human body has more muscles than the octupus, and the brain could handle more due to the throughput example I provided.

You seem to be assuming at an animals ability to manipulate its limbs and handle its sensory organs is a direct function of the same kind of intelligence that humans measure with an IQ test. The brain is more complicated than that.

Not at all, I am well aware that muscle control is separate functionality then abstract thought.

Paralith:

If what you are saying is true about the localized mini brain and quickness of response and feedback, than wouldn't the most agile creatures on the planet be the smallest ones and the larger you got the less agile, due to longer neural paths?

This degenerative effect is not present in the larger creatures.

The aging process in humans (and possibly all animals) is that the strength of the neuron firing as well as the strength of the neuron associative pathways declines thus lost information and slower to answer.

However, don't confuse walking slower and being less mobile with neural degeneration, that is degeneration of the cells of muscles, bones, etc. A 70 year old with 8 arms would control all 8 arms fine, just slower just like they do with 2.

I don't think anyone really has much experience of string theory. They may have much experience of advanced mathematics and balancing equations with extra dimensions though.

This is of course my opinion and therefore could be entirely wrong and in 50 years when a powerful enough accelerator is built maybe all these strings will come vibrating out...

I laugh at some of the "arguments" of the smoking crowd.

"I have the right to smoke where ever I want"

Oh, its in the constitution?

"If you don't want me to smoke, ask me."

Yeh, studies have shown that smokers are far more polite people.

"You can wash the smoke out of your clothes crybaby."

There is a reason "smoke damage" depreciates things.

"Cars pollute too, no one is banning them."

Oh, I have never had someone tell me damn, have you been driving a car, you smell like a car. I also was unaware that carcinogens are emitted from ICEs.

"Society is crumbling becase of laws that are lame!!"

Really? I figured it was more the lame people.

It is illegal to be in public naked, naked people don't harm others, naked people don't cause long term health risks, and it seems like people could just politely ask a naked person if they minded putting on some clothes at the restaraunt.....but some silly people passed anti-naked laws that are making our society crumble...