Jump to content

1veedo

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 1veedo

  1. It comes from the 2001 IPCC report Climate Change: The Scientific Basis; one of the largest peer-reviewed publications in the entire history of science. If you wont accept peer-review as evidence then there's no use talking. Nobody is denying that the sun has historically been the primary factor for global warming. What people are denying is that sun has caused this apparent 1C degree change in the past 150 years, .7~.8 degree change in the last hundred, and .6C degree change in the past thirty. It is especially the last 100 years where the sun stops correlating as well with temperatures as it has been historically (it still correlates to an extent, especially before 1950, but not nearly as closely at it has historically). Solar irradiance correlates with global temperatures much better than sunspots. Sunspots just happen to correlate very closely with solar irradiance. More sunspots=hotter sun. This is basic astronomy. Just because it has been that way for millions (billions) of years does not mean that the sun is responsible for the current temperature deviation. All you can correctly deduce from this premise is that current temperatures might be caused by solar influences, not that they absolutely are. You have a published source for this statement I assume? It's not the IPCC that has "made this stuff up;" they only republished what other scientists had figured out.
  2. I'm sure you've seen this graph before. I just drug this one off google image results -- same data. http://www.cypenv.org/images/forcing.jpg You can see that w/o the anthorpogenic forcing factored in temperatures just bounce up and down a little, staying within what you'd consider natural deviation. 2000 is slightly cooler than in 1850 (see first graph). Sunspots btw are not a direct indicator of solar irradiance. We already discussed why the sun cant be causing global warming here (it certainly has contributed to the total effect, but overall anthropogenic factors are much larger), http://scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27453 http://scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28554 I'm pretty sure what the sun is doing falls under "natural deviation" and isn't anything special whereas human activities are moving the climate beyond what it would normally be doing.
  3. Indeed. And the same points you're trying to bring up now have already been refuted before, by several different people on several different occasions. Repeating yourself (and/or yelling/writing in caps) does not make you any more correct now than the first time you said it. Most of the human effects started to become noticeable around 1900 (when if I remember correctly it was about 50% vs 50& anthropogenic vs natural). The reason that the Earth cooled after 1941 is very much the fault of humans as well. If we hadn't been releasing so many particulates into the atmosphere then the Earth would actually be a lot warmer today than it actually is. Natural variability tends to shift the Earth's temperature up or down short term but the cumulative effect of anthropogenic activity has been adding up to a degrees or so sense ~1750, and possibly even before (rice farmers in china etc). You can look at it and say that yes the Earth was warming before 1900 and that it was mostly natural but you cannot equivocate this by saying that humans have only started effecting the temperature sense 1976. Back around 1860 for instance the temperature droped a few degrees but had there been no human influence the temperature would have been even lower. If you look at just the natural factors in the climate from ~1850 the Earth's temperature would be about the same now as it was in 1850. But when you add anthropogenic influences over this period you can see how it's about a degree © warmer now than it was in 1850. This degree is the result of human activities over the entire period, not just from 1976. The rise in temperature however is exponential so where it took 150 years to rise 1 degree it might only take 50 years (or less) to rise another degree. So as the effects are becoming more noticeable you can more easily point at the last 30 years and say "hey, this rapid warming is caused by humans" but we've done a lot more than just the recent .2C/decade increase in temperature.
  4. Politics have very little to do with the actual science involved. You can argue about green peace kyoto political nonsense but the science on this issue is very clear that global warming is real and that it is primarily caused by humans. How politicians decide to abuse these facts has nothing to do with the actual science behind it. Except that it's not and Earth's natural cycles indicate the Earth should be getting cooler right now, not warmer, just as it has been for roughly 8k years. Global warming is not bassed on any handful of computer models but is in fact supported by various forms of evidence beyond what our climate simulations have already proven. You are coming off on a good point but over-extending it. Global warming does seem to be getting "sci-fi" news exagerations but this does not cover up what science does know. Furthermore the current location of New York city was in fact underwater some 100 or so thousand years ago when the Earth's temperature was higher than it is today (interesting enough CO2 levels were lower back then). The Co2 we are releasing into the atmosphere is causing global warming. This is for the most part a bad thing. The Earth and its ecosystems is not going to blow up and disappear because of global warming. Many species will (are) go(ing) extinct and many ecosystems will (have already) be(en) disrupted but nature will adapt and the Earth will still be here orbiting the sun millions of years from now. Anyobody who's had any sort of biology 101 / high school class should know that any sort of climate change -- be it up or down, if fast enough, is generally bad.
  5. The sun hasn't gotten any "stronger" sense at least the mid-1970's (I think 1976 which is when we first started recording direct solar irradiance from a satellite). There's also some data suggesting the sun has cooled off sense about the 40's and has definitely gotten cooler in the last 8,000 years.
  6. The other things found in alcohol also contribute to the hangover. Different kinds of drinks are better for hangovers than others. For instance if you're drinking only beer, amber bock will cause you to have a much worse hangover than bud select. In the case of beer the darker the beer the worse of a hangover you get. On a side-note the "nutrients" in beer, and especially the extra water vs alcohol found in beer, is supposed to limit how bad your hangover is. Dehydration does cause a lot of hangover symptoms but there are others which are unrelated to dehydration or which contribute to make some of the symptoms worse.
  7. Not in all countries / provinces. It's kind of stupid that it is illegal but that's a completely different topic.
  8. True. You usually still feel a little high at least the next day, especially if you smoked a lot (maybe not high but you feel something. Sometimes you can actually be "burnt out" a day or so if you smoke often enough and don't have a high tolerance, eg poor memory, can't talk to people). I forget what the half life of TCH in your blood is but it also depends on the plant and how much you already have stored in your fat (I'm thinking like 20 hours up to 10 days, so you'll still have 50% of the THC from smoking in your blood after 20 hours / 10 days). That's why if you haven't smoked for a while you don't get as high until the second time. THC is one of the best drugs for fixing digestive problems, especially nausea and loss of appetite. Eg, http://www.marinol.com or even http://bodybuilding.com/store/clabs/black.html (it's known as a cannaboid -- black hole works exactly like THC on a chemical level, it just isn't absorbed as easily). I'm not suggesting that 20-30 days latter you have enough thc in your blood to help you out but it doesn't just disappear after you smoke. You usually take marinol once a day and I'm pretty sure black hole also. Of course another thing most people don't know is that THC all by itself doesn't make you high. More THC will make you trip more but it doesn't actually work without the other chemicals found in weed. Marijuana makes you feel better in general, even when you're not actually high (eg 1 or 2 days after smoking). It's a lot nicer to your body than alcohol too. Everything in moderation though. If you smoke too often you start having concentration/memory problems. They're not long-term side-effects though, you just have to let some of the THC get out of your bloodstream.
  9. I'm pretty sure this means that the Chinese government picks the next lama so they'll chose someone who'll keep all the Chinese Buddhists in line.
  10. ssh is the best way to go. It works like a proxy so the ip/domain isn't revealed AND all the data is encrypted.
  11. I've noticed that if hypothetically I've smoked marijuana within one or two weeks of drinking I don't get hangovers. And I'm the stereotypical skinny guy who usually gets really bad hangovers. If you look at some of the things marijuana treats verses hangover symptoms it would make a lot of sense. Hangover symptoms: Dehydration (fixed with some water lol) Headache* Bodyache* Nausea* Loss of appetite* Fatigue Irritability (probably caused because of the other symptoms more than anything else) All the *'s are treated by marijuana. Makes sense to me at least. I cant find any studies which prove this though. A word of warning; from what I've heard you're really not supposed to mix marijuana with alcohol so to treat hangovers you'd want to smoke a few days before actually drinking. And no this is not a "legalize medical marijuana" thread
  12. Wow this is old. I made a post here in 2005 and frankly I could slap myself. I would rather not read my old posts.
  13. Maybe globally but in many areas of the planet natural gas is locally running out. Eg the US for example. I assume you can ship it like oil but conventionally natural gas has been sent through pipe lines. There's a proposal to build a pipeline from siberia to Alaska cause siberia has a lot of natural gas. What joke?
  14. We can teach physics and environmental science.
  15. The program is open source if I remember correctly so there's no viruses or anything in it. It works really well but not enough people use it to do anything like p2p over it. Side question: if you ran tor in sever external mode (whatever it's called, been a while sense I used it) could you claim deniability if the government thought you were doing something illegal? "No, I wasn't hax0ring, obviously I have this proxy set up and someone else was doing it, not me!"
  16. Just wait a couple years. When you get to high school you'll take calculus and probably some specific science courses. Science is a very broad field. You have to find what you like within science -- eg biology, psychology, physics, etc. Then you also have engineering which is where things like robotics would come in. Engineering is basically applied science. Meanwhile you can also read about whatever interests you in your own time. Get a book on something that sounds interesting.
  17. WTF do pies have to do with the OP?
  18. If you say you live with your father then you might be able to get the cheaper rates. In the US there's a similar deal with in-state and out of state students. Just like the UK's government, in the US both the federal and state governments help pay for college so if you go to a school in another state you end up paying a lot more. It's perfectly normal, ChemSiddiqui. It's not like they're discriminating against oversees students. You just aren't a citizen and therefore haven't been paying taxes all your life. This is the same problem many countries have with "illegals" living inside their borders, but not paying taxes. Illegal immigrants get some of the benefits that citizens do but they don't have to pay taxes.
  19. If you have like say for instance in assembly idiv which gives you how many times it divides and then the remainder you can of course iterate to divide two numbers all the way through (or as far as you want). What I want to do is divide a number by b*c (as opposed to what b * c actually evaluates to). You can divide a by b and then that number by c to get how many times bc goes into a but I can't figure out how to get the remainder. Like if you divide 11 by 6 you can represent it 11/(3*2). 11 / 6 = 1 remainder 5. 11/3 = 3 remainder 2. (a/b = x, r) 3 / 2 = 1 remainder 1. (x/c = x-2, r-2) So we know it divides once but we have two remainders: 1, and 2, and I cannot figure out how to get 5 as your actual remainder. (I'm pretty sure multiplying 3 * 1 + 1 * 2 doesn't work btw on all numbers) edit-- Alright that was kind of dumb. It's obviously a - (bc*x). My problem was in making data smaller I don't want to multiply b times c.
  20. That actually is the case. I forget what it's called exactly but in psychology you learn that a developing brain changes based on outside stimulation. There was an experiment for example done on mice. One mouse was a sad mouse with nothing to do and the other had plenty of environmental stimulation. When they cut open their brains the "happy mouse" had more neural connections than the sad one. So there is a little bit of basis for the hypothesis that maybe music (in general, not just mozart) could make a child smarter, but the research suggests that this isn't actually the case. The problem with this is that companies take advantage of parents (*cough* moms) and sell them mozart/beethovan cds to make their children smarter (my parents even did this lol) but it's just false advertising. The moral of the story is that you might as well not waste your money. And you are right that almost all of intelligence is genetically determined.
  21. 1veedo

    Why???????

    That Borat movie. I've never actually seen it but I've heard about all the Jews mice and nickels.
  22. Skeptics dictionary: Mozart Effect Listening to Mozart or other classical music does not make you smarter.
  23. 1veedo

    Why???????

    Why did they make that stupid movie and why does everyone continue to allude to the nickel jew joke in 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.