iNow

Hey, right on, interstellar! Thanks. I've set it to record. Cheers.

Still waiting on a source for your assertion: it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%.

Let's see your math in support of that. "Not really terribly likely to be sufficient" is hardly quantized. General question - Should I have stuck to what I said when I commented "We are done here?" Your argument equates to saying that it takes an increase of 1 full degree C in ocean temperature to give an increase in wind speed of 5%. Can we please see a source in support of this? Then, once you've supplied a source, I'd like to hear you explain how this "one degree C" is the more relevant factor than that quoted in my previous source which explicity discussed how storm intensity is based on a threshold, not a linear increase. In other words, temps can increase quite a lot and do nothing, but once past this threshold, intensity magnification is profound. Global warming increases sea surface temperatures (SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form. Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins. Again, can't we just be done here now? You're just wasting my time, because I've said nothing invalid thus far.

Righto. I suppose that's what I get for being lazy and not exploring more of my google hits while sitting in a meeting at work. Disregard the Time piece (tee hee), that's fine. Here's more on the point I was making: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/111816/4408 Global warming has long been predicted to make hurricanes more intense. Well, now we are seeing more intense hurricanes. Chris Mooney has a great post on the recent storm surge of Category 5 hurricanes, now that Felix has joined that once-elite club. He notes: There have now been 8 Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes in the past 5 years (Isabel, Ivan, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Dean, Felix). There have been two Atlantic Category 5s so far this year; only three other seasons have had more than one (1960, 1961, 2005). There have been 8 Atlantic Category 5 hurricanes so far in the 2000s; no other decade has had so many. The closest runner up is the 1960s with 6 (Donna, Ethel, Carla, Hattie, Beulah, Camille). Some people, especially the Deniers, think this is all a coincidence, or the result of incomplete data from earlier years. Here's why I don't: Global warming increases sea surface temperatures (SSTs), which are directly correlated with stronger storms. Indeed, tropical cyclones are threshold events -- if sea surface temperatures are below 80°F (26.5°C), they do not form. Some analysis even suggests there is a sea surface temperature threshold close to 83°F needed for the spawning major hurricanes. Global warming may actually cause some hurricanes and some major hurricanes to develop that otherwise would not have (by raising sea surface temperatures above the necessary threshold at the right place or time). This is especially true in the Atlantic, where sea surface temperatures appear to be closer to the threshold than other hurricane-forming basins. Equally important, one of the ways that hurricanes are weakened is the upwelling of colder, deeper water due to the hurricane's own violent action. But if the deeper water is also warm, it doesn't weaken the hurricane. In fact, it may continue to intensify. Global warming heats both the sea surface and the deep water, thus creating ideal conditions for a hurricane to survive and thrive in its long journey from tropical depression to Category 4 or 5 superstorm. More that the link, and also plenty of others to substantiate my position. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844 Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade. I suppose your next step will be to suggest that we cannot trust the journal Science? Clearly, the only possible explanation is that they are wrong since they've reported that the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased 80% in the past 30 years. Finally, even if I grant you that the 80% figure is too high, you'll fail in the argument since my primary point is that stronger categories of hurricanes/cyclones are more common. ALL available and valid/accurate data support this point, so we're done here.

This is another one of those math word problems that Lance has such trouble with. He equates an "if/then" statement with a prediction, hence his tangential attempt at rebuttal. The quote again: The Nature researchers estimate that every 1 degree C increase in sea-surface temperature would result in a 31% increase in the global frequency of category 4 and 5 storms. Given that computer models indicate that ocean temperatures could rise by up to 2 degrees C by 2100, those are scary calculations. It's especially worrying because the most intense storms do the most damage by far — several minor storms can equal the damage of a single severe hurricane. "The category 1 or 2 storms don't do that much," says Emanuel. "It's the 3 and 4 storms that really do the damage, and we could see more of them." A quote which was shared in support of my comments to John regarding the important measurement being hurricane intensity, and the increasing frequency of stronger hurricanes (category 4 & 5), not overall frequency or hurricanes of all categories.

Try reading the article (and the quote I supplied). It was based on data published in the journal Nature. See above. Bye bye, Lance.

Not as bad as reproducing beyond what our available resources can sustain. Since we crested the point which our planet could actually sustain decades ago, I'd say any argument in favor or maintaining current reproduction rates (status quo) falls flat on it's face due to a lack of connection with reality.

While the primary factor is a night of sleep after the learning/practice, both in fact are important. Getting a good night sleep the night(s) prior to the learning/practice will better prime the mind to perform the task and retain the information. So, despite the after sleep being the more prominent contributor to the effect, getting better sleep before is also important.

Hurricane frequency has not gone up, but hurricane intensity has. If you look only at high intensity storms, those have increased in frequency dramatically. Intensity is the revelant bit, not gross number of storms. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839281,00.html So far, tropical ocean temperatures have risen by about 0.5 degree C since 1970, which could explain the more powerful storms. The Nature researchers estimate that every 1 degree C increase in sea-surface temperature would result in a 31% increase in the global frequency of category 4 and 5 storms. Given that computer models indicate that ocean temperatures could rise by up to 2 degrees C by 2100, those are scary calculations. It's especially worrying because the most intense storms do the most damage by far — several minor storms can equal the damage of a single severe hurricane. "The category 1 or 2 storms don't do that much," says Emanuel. "It's the 3 and 4 storms that really do the damage, and we could see more of them."

And I can't help but agree. You're hitting nails on heads. Phi's clarification about not necessarily "wanting" it is also good, but the bigger point is that we are being screwed by our "representative" government, as they are not representing us. In fact, they are going explicitly against the desires of the majority. Good grief.

Nothing goes back in time. It's just a way of looking at the math, a model. It is not some experimental result.

Yes, this is also exactly how projectors work (at least older ones, but I think DLP follow this same approach). You basically have three bulbs, and they project onto a screen to create all of the various colors.

Not 100% on topic, but very closely related. http://nanosoc.wisc.edu/Scheufele%20-%20UW%20press%20release.pdf When it comes to the world of the very, very small — nanotechnology — Americans have a big problem: Nano and its capacity to alter the fundamentals of nature, it seems, are failing the moral litmus test of religion. In a report published today (Dec. 7) in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, survey results from the United States and Europe reveal a sharp contrast in the perception that nanotechnology is morally acceptable. Those views, according to the report, correlate directly with aggregate levels of religious views in each country surveyed. In the United States and a few European countries where religion plays a larger role in everyday life, notably Italy, Austria and Ireland, nanotechnology and its potential to alter living organisms or even inspire synthetic life is perceived as less morally acceptable. In more secular European societies, such as those in France and Germany, individuals are much less likely to view nanotechnology through the prism of religion and find it ethically suspect. "The level of 'religiosity' in a particular country is one of the strongest predictors of whether or not people see nanotechnology as morally acceptable," says Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication and the lead author of the new study. "Religion was the strongest influence over everything." The study compared answers to identical questions posed by the 2006 Eurobarometer public opinion survey and a 2007 poll by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center conducted under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University. The survey was led by Scheufele and Elizabeth Corley, an associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. The survey findings, says Scheufele, are important not only because they reveal the paradox of citizens of one of the world's elite technological societies taking a dim view of the implications of a particular technology, but also because they begin to expose broader negative public attitudes toward science when people filter their views through religion. "What we captured is nanospecific, but it is also representative of a larger attitude toward science and technology," Scheufele says. "It raises a big question: What's really going on in our public discourse where science and religion often clash?" For the United States, the findings are particularly surprising, Scheufele notes, as the country is without question a highly technological society and many of the discoveries that underpin nanotechnology emanated from American universities and companies. The technology is also becoming more pervasive, with more than 1,000 products ranging from more efficient solar panels and scratch-resistant automobile paint to souped-up golf clubs already on the market. "It's estimated that nanotechnology will be a $3.1 trillion global industry by 2015," Scheufele says. "Nanotechnology is one of those areas that is starting to touch nearly every part of our lives." To be sure that religion was such a dominant influence on perceptions of nanotechnology, the group controlled for such things as science literacy, educational performance, and levels of research productivity and funding directed to science and technology by different countries. "We really tried to control for country-specific factors," Scheufele explains. "But we found that religion is still one of the strongest predictors of whether or not nanotechnology is morally acceptable and whether or not it is perceived to be useful for society." The findings from the 2007 U.S. survey, adds Scheufele, also suggest that in the United States the public's knowledge of nanotechnology has been static since a similar 2004 survey. Scheufele points to a paucity of news media interest and the notion that people who already hold strong views on the technology are not necessarily seeking factual information about it. "There is absolutely no change in what people know about nanotechnology between 2004 and 2007. This is partly due to the fact that mainstream media are only now beginning to pay closer attention to the issue. There has been a lot of elite discussion in Washington, D.C., but not a lot of public discussion. And nanotechnology has not had that catalytic moment, that key event that draws public attention to the issue." Here's a link to the actual study: http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nnano.2008.361.html

I think the "new" stuff comes by combining data differently, in new ways. However, the data itself is what we must take in from the outside world, and which relies on past experience. The creative aspect is how we put it together and organize it. So, the data are taken from the existing, and the pattern and grouping of each datum is the newly created bit. That's my guy reaction to your question, npts. I haven't validated it against the literature or anything, so bare that in mind.

Beautiful. I'm also going to be using spray foam insulation in the cracks and crevices, and caulking around the window area. It seems obvious now that I have had responses from all of you, but for some reason after I'd spent hours inhaling dry wall dust and tile fragments I was not feeling overly confident and figured I'd check. Thanks each of you.

Obama basically came out explicitly against this yesterday on Meet the Press. To paraphrase, he finds the idea of articially inflating gas prices to be very sound, and agrees that it would significantly curb our oil usage, but he does not want any such thing passing right now. His reasoning is that so many Americans are out of work, struggling to pay bills, losing their homes, and having a hard time putting food on the table that he doesn't want to add yet another stressor on their financial burdens. He likes the idea in the longer term, but doesn't seem willing to make so many people suffer as a result of it in the immediate term. Toward the end of this clip --> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28096607#28096607

Yeah, like a specific link and quote as I requested prior to that response... line[/hr] What's next?... Indeed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfVzFBTk1eQ

I think we've all felt this at least once or on some particular topic. When I took Chinese, I would dread the oral part. I could read, speak, write and memorize the crap out of Mandarin, but when it came to listening, I may as well have been deaf. It made me so angry, too, since being able to understand the spoken language is so important when studying a language. Either way, you're neither the first, nor will you be the last to have one particular topic which causes you anxiety and difficulty. This is very good advise to yourself. SO much of this is a confidence in your own abilities. In psychology, it's called "self-efficacy." It is a belief in ones own ability to accomplish something. Having a high self-efficacy is a wonderful tool in doing just about anything well. If you go in thinking you will fail, then you'll more likely experience the other dreaded concept in psychology... the "self-fulfilling prophecy." It's amazing... if you don't think you can do well, chances increase significantly that you won't. So... Just believe in yourself. It's not enough to get the job done, but it forms a solid foundation. Also, watch out for overconfidence. It's a fine line between "believing in yourself" and being "overconfident" and not preparing well enough. Some anxiety/arousal is good, because it motivates you, but keep it in check, because too much will decrease performance. I always liked this curve to describe the effect: There's not one magic pill, nor silver bullet, since different things work for different people. However, there are a few things you can do that are pretty universal. First, keep up with the material. If you know you struggle with something, then spend extra time with it. Work at it every day. Go to every class, and do all of the homework IMMEDIATLY, and visit the instructor or TA to clarify things you don't understand. Don't be embarrassed to not know something, be embarrassed only if you don't take active steps to resolve confusions. Either way, keep up with the material, and practice it after you've learned it. That way, when the test comes, you're comfortable and cozy with everything being covered. Along similar lines, don't cram. It doesn't work, and tends to stress you out even more. Make "studying" a lifestyle, not a chore. It truly helps, and you'll have the added benefit of retaining that knowledge longer. Another is, if you have the opportunity to do so, study in the same room where the test will be. It's called "context dependent memory." Basically, it will be easier to remember things because when you studied you associated parts of your surroundings with that environment. If you're taking a test underwater, then study underwater, too. If you have friends who are taking the same class, setup times to study with them. When you get together, have a plan. Don't use the time socialize, that's not what you're there for. You can talk about personal/social stuff after the test is handed in. But, studying together can help because they may have questions you've never thought of yourself. Also, if they ask a question and you know the answer, it will help you to learn it better by trying to explain it to them. Last, if you don't understand something and they do, they may be able to put it into terms which help you get that "aha" moment. It's mutually beneficial, so long as you remain focussed and don't screw around talking about boys or something. If you do all of that, then there truly is no reason to be anxious. You've given yourself every opportunity to be successful. You may not know it all, but you've worked hard, and you've given yourself to the cause, so then it's just time to go in and do it. Give it your all. You may not get the grade you want, but you'll have done your best. Finally, sleep as much as you can before the test... that whole week. Sleep consolidates memory and helps you think more clearly. This is additional reason not to cram or stay up the whole night before. If you ever had to choose between spending 2 or 3 more hours studying or getting sleep, ALWAYS choose the sleep. Studies have shown that being well rested and having slept improves test scores significantly more than pushing yourself studying last minute. And, if you've done what I suggest above, there will be no need to cram. I've heard that chewing peppermint gum while taking the test stimulates your brain and helps you remember, but I'm not sure about that one. Good luck with it all.

Phew... you knew EXACTLY what I was worried about. Thank FSM! I didn't figure it would be a problem, it just seemed weird that I'd have a layer in there which effectively had a vapor barrier on each side. Thanks for the reassurance, IA.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=419479#post419479

So, I've been doing a lot of renovating of my house since I bought it, and I'm doing all of the work myself. Yesterday, I spent most of my day in the master bathroom ripping down tiles and existing drywall. The bathroom has two walls that connect to the exterior of the house (it's in a corner, and two of the walls need exterior to interior insulation). I'll be using batt insulation, the cotton candy-looking stuff, which has a vapor barrier made of kraftpaper on one side. The insulation there now is in good shape, but is more than 30 years old. It's a faced insulation (fiberglass with a kraftpaper backing). I plan to add new insulation regardless, but my question is this. As long as I'm careful not to compress the insulation, can I simply add another layer of faced insulation on top of the layer of faced insulation which is there now? I know this will bring greater protection against thermal transfer, and the wall cavity is large enough to receive two layers without compression, but my concern is specific to the faced layer already there. I am not quite sure if creating a sandwich of exterior/fiberglass/kraftpaper/fiberglass/kraftpaper/interior will work or present unforeseen problems. Can you guys think of any reason not leave the existing faced layer in place, and just add another faced layer on top, as long as compression is not an issue? I know it's okay to do when using unfaced insulation, but that vapor barrier in the middle has me apprehensive, since it's a bathroom project... Then again, an additional vapor barrier in the middle may be a good thing. I dunno. Any ideas?

Jackson - Free markets are great, but we don't have one. Nobody on our entire planet does. We are a mixed economy, and for good reason. Ala, your idea fails since it's nonrepresentative of reality. Spherical cows don't produce milk. Pangloss - What if the government got into new markets and avoided personal cars, like I suggested above (rail, buses, etc). Doesn't that render most of your objections moot?

Of course hurricane activity is regional. You don't see hurricanes very far inland. You don't see many hurricanes in Idaho (or, Alice Springs for the Aussie). To your point about the western pacific, the effects of La Nina and changing ocean currents (hence, changing water temperatures) appear to be the dominant reason for the decrease in cyclonic activity there. It's not so much that hurricane changes are regional as much as there are more than one factor to consider.

TomC, I'm pretty sure granpa was not trying to assist with your question, and was instead citing the final line of a well-known math joke. Why he did this, I have no clue, but you really shouldn't worry much about it since it's not relevant to your inquiry. A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were traveling through Scotland when they saw a black sheep through the window of the train. "Aha," says the engineer, "I see that Scottish sheep are black." "Hmm," says the physicist, "You mean that some Scottish sheep are black." "No," says the mathematician, "All we know is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland, and that at least one side of that one sheep is black!" He may have been trying to use allegory or illusion to suggest that just because we interpret the information we have about the universe in a specific way does not mean that our interepretation is correct, nor that we have all of the information we need to make any such assumptions. Where this approach fails, of course, is that we can apply this "lack of complete information" assertion to just about anything we study. I see no reason to give up in the face of incomplete data, myself... no reason to just throw our hands in the air as a result. That would be silly. Quite the opposite, it should motivate us to learn more, by asking questions and looking for answers like you have here.

You can think about it any way that you want to. The balloon thing is only an anology to help you picture the concept in your mind, not an actual representation of reality. Also, gravity carries throughout the universe, so your pocket idea ("there is no gravitiation link with other groups of galaxies) doesn't seem to stand up to the empirical test. While the strength of that gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance it still carries throughout the universe. Finally, WTF are you talking about with all of that stealing ideas stuff? It doesn't make any sense in the context of your two posts here.