Gankfest

Cool, tried Googling it, but wasn't answering my question. Figured it was some mixture of particles, or wind pushing the particles upwards. Anyway thanx for the answers, answered my question.

How does Carbon Dioxide get trapped in the upper atmosphere if it's heavier than other particles in the atmosphere? For example if you take a canister of water and add dry ice, and bubbles start to pour out. The bubbles will sink to the ground and not float, because it's heavier than the air around it. This got me wondering how Carbon dioxide gets stuck up in the Stratosphere. Thanx!

Thanks, I will look into it. Colorado US, but I think I overpriced that. If I just did milk it would be roughly 50$ a month, and for beef/chicken 50$ - 80$. Like 130$ a month total. I work out a lot, so I burn a lot of calories. To give an example I rode a BMX bike 8k miles last year + a 25 hour job, and 3 days a week lifting. I'm 33... Yes this was helpful, and that's how I've understood it. At the same time it's hard to find any real facts on the internet's as there is a lot of misinformation surrounding the issues. Such as: omg GMO's \o/ epidemic, fad diets, pills, supplements, etc... With that being said, thinking about just doing the milk and eating the same meat. I mostly eat chicken and fish, and beef once in awhile. Chicken/Fish is pretty lean anyway, and you can look at the packaging and find the least fattiest cut when it comes to beef. Picking out lean beef isn't an issue. I asked a question, you failed to deliver... How is it my fault? In the future try not side tracking a thread. I'm not trying to be mean about it, but you guys started going into left field. Being 5'11 and 180lbs I'm trying to lose a layer of fat, so not like I'm obese being like how do I put the fork down... Really I'm trying to figure out how much more I can push out of grass fed, but it doesn't seem like it's much if any at all. Either way thanks for the responses, and maybe lowering calorie intake by 100 - 200 is the way to go.

What this has to do with Grass Fed vs Corn Fed is beyond me? The rest of what was said doesn't really answer anything, so why it's even posted in here is also beyond me.

I don't see how people can be skeptical over basic physics...

When it comes to losing weight, and by weight I'm talking like 5 - 10 lbs of abdominal fat is it more beneficial to eat grass fed meat/milk vs. corn fed. I tried looking this up, but could only find non scientific articles on the subject. I shop for food based on cost, so I don't want to spend an extra 100 - 200 dollars a month on grass fed products that have no or little benefit to losing weight and fitness altogether. Thanks!

Saw this video, and want to know if it's legit? I know it's collegehumor, but I've seen my friend turn his house into a Dodge Charger. I just don't know enough about PS to determine if they're turning a pizza into a model legitimately. Anyway, figure someone that's an expert in PS would be able to figure it out and curb my curiosity. Thanx!

That's what I thought, and I found this info: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/... http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... http://www.remss.com/measureme... Which I've been reading into the TLT(Upper Air Pressure) article, but it's a lot of reading.

Wanting to know what these graphs actually mean... The article: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/ Here is the main graph from rmess. http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html So what's the deal? It's talking about temperature anomalies, but Idk what that really means in terms of global warming. Thanx!

Wanted to come back and say that Game Theory was pretty much the explanation here without doing any self modeling. I can't tell you how many many politicians are corrupt, but I can tell you about how much I don't really care. I found it an interesting question, and figured there was something relating to it. Anyway thanx for the info guys.

There is a debate going on in a gaming forum that I'm apart of that has to do with Free Thinking(Freewill) and why people come to different conclusions. Now personally I think this is more of a stupidity argument rather than a Free Thinking, but I'll present it here to get some outside information. The argument is pretty much this: If you take two people and give them an article about something, why do they come to different conclusions with the exact same information. For example: I give two separate people the exact same information on Man Made global warming. The information is factual proof that global warming exists. Now one person reads the information and believes the information to be true, while the other reads the information and doesn't find the information to be true. Why does this happen...? In this situation we can say most likely there are 3rd party influences hindering thought process. Say the person who believes in global warming has a better education and understands the material better. Maybe the person that doesn't believe in global warming had a bad experience with scientist, and is letting his emotions cloud his judgement. There is a lot of factors at play like genetics, and you can fathom up a lot of 3rd party influences. We're past determined probability, 3rd party influences, and are looking more into the thought process itself. Take the same global warming situation, but say the 2 people are identical twins, have the exact same life experience and education. It seems probable that they would both agree, since they're exactly the same(Same as we are going to get for the sake of the argument.), it seems most likely that they would come to the same conclusion every time. Say they don't, and one believes in global warming while the other doesn't. There isn't any 3rd party influences that are effecting the thought process, so it's most likely that the thought process is being corrupted within. The question really comes down to where are thoughts stored and compiled in the brain. Why is the logic being corrupted of the person not believing in global warming. Is there some form of neuron damage etc... This is where we run into a wall. We all understand how the brain works, but none of us majored in neuroscience either. We just don't know how to investigate this further, and would like a little outside help. I tried to explain this the best I can, but if any clarification is needed. I will do my best to sum up any information needed. It really comes down to Aumann's Agreement Theorem

Ya... I figured out and linked Morano to Exxon. Roy Spencer was part of the Cornwall Alliance... So, Idk... Not like I'm going to argue every turd on the internet... I try to inform people, but people believe what they want to believe anyway... Nothing I can do about that. I go on Climate Depot, and where ever else and do some trolling; gotta do my part in the fight against miss information. I was already doing that anyway on Alex Jones sites and some other places. Looking at this EPA page: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html Best case scenario is 450 ppm, which scientists suggest that isn't safe. I guess only time will tell the fate of humanity like it matters anyway... If we were to parish to Global Warming it's only evolution running its course. From what I read: stupidity, greed, <Insert Fail Here> isn't calculated in the future CO2 emissions models. How can we account for disasters like... j/k, but not really... : D

Is there some type of format I can use to plug in the variables and variants, so it makes sense, and maybe thinking about how to do it wouldn't be so difficult. Is it even possible to do? Because now that I think about it. Isn't the accuracy of a model dependent on the possible variables and variants within the scenario? For this instance on corruption, there would be millions if not more possible forms of corruption, and since corruption is opinionated anyway when it comes to politics... It means corruption is skewed to political opinion, which could lead to the model data being corrupted due to political bias.

That's very true... I guess corruption as in: Lying, Stealing, and Cheating for personal gain. Something along those lines...

I would do this myself, but the knowledge in math and physics goes beyond me. I have never even thought about it, but figured someone probably has. Anyway, is there anything in physics or math that goes into the probability of Political Corruption, or just corruption in a system in general. For example, the US Congress has 535 members' what's the probability of all 535 members being corrupted. Kind of like Compartmentalization I figure also, there would have to be breakage in a system if it got to big. For 535 people I have no idea. I figure it would be 1/<Insert really long number here> chance that 98% of people on the planet are in on some sort of conspiracy. Anyway, if there is some related work that someone knows of just post a couple of links to give an idea of where to start looking. Thanx!