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!

I just started looking into climate change just a few days ago. I haven't looked into global warming since roughly 1997, and never once thought about it as one of the top dire problems in the world today. Honestly it was a problem somewhere around number 5 on my list. Other than computer science, I also read into Quantum Mechanics. I don't know much about ecosystems and climate; other than the basics you learn in college. What I do know is physics and mathematics. I get the jest of some of the things they say... I completely understand the chain reaction effect of gasses and warming; which is just chemistry + physics, and the exponential curve rates which is mathematics. If someone presents me information that's objective to the truth; which is what happened here. I can then read the information, compare that information with other information, and make an informed opinion. If you look at my thread I recently created about climate change, I looked at the case with complete scrutiny, and debunking pseudoscience and crackpots like Roy Spencer and Marc Morano. My friend isn't delusional schizophrenic, but he's very irrational(Which I was a little worried there). I convinced him that Global Warming is a dire problem, and media bias distorts the truth. I did this by debunking Glenn Beck his lord and savior. Anyway, my point is this. By doing the research and coming to an objective consensus. I was able to convince an irrational person of the truth about Global Warming, and it's now the number 1 problem on my list. It only took me roughly 27 hours of research to come to that consensus. I haven't slept much lately! Not because I'm scared, but just because it's some interesting information, and it gets me out of the physics world for a bit.

I know we have some renewable energy sources like Solar, wind, and hydro. How realistic is it to get every country on board, and really start fixing the problem. When I look at politics today, I see stuff like "We got to pass it, before we can see what's in it." then I turn off the T.V.! Are we going to be able to fix this, or are we F**ked. I guess I just want to know what scientists say what's being done, and if it's even making an impact. For me, just looking at the surface data and reading into it, seems like the real deal and it comes down to a little basic math: If Human CO2 output has a relationship with fossil fuels and human population growth. Then if human population grows exponentially; then they all will grow exponentially. Which is the underlying problem I see, which is somewhat what Bill was trying to say here: First thing Bill says it's the RATES that matter. I figure he's talking about the exponential curve of human population; which we have, or are going to hit soon(Idr this info. ). Once this happens the Fossil Fuel usage and the CO2 output will grow exponentially as well. Causing a faster rate of warming and rising temperatures. Which then creates a chain reaction; that leads to even more gases being released through the Earth's crust. Along with the polar ice melting releasing even more CO2. From what I know about renewable energy, and how countries like China and Russia don't care... It just doesn't like good for us! That's my honest assessment, not like it really matters. It's only a matter of time before the world ends in <Insert Number Here>. Either way, I want to enjoy my time! I could be wrong too, as I might be wrong with the facts. Also notice how Bill rocks a Bowtie well...

From the reading I've done so far; which I can't even describe how much I've learned about the climate and everything else just in the past few days. Ok, so how accurate are the models that we have today? From reading I know NASA has a super computer GISS that they use. Is there any other climate modeling computer that is comparing the data. In the end, what matters is the accuracy of the predictions. If it was 2% accurate and 98% of error rate in the predictions; than that really isn't good information to take global warming seriously. I figured the the accuracy is better than that... I hope! Anyway, you get my point. I'll soon figure it out though.

I just figure if something wasn't a real issue like global warming; than scientists would just go research something else. Then people would pay people to do whatever else scientists or the world think os a problem today. Also with someone like George Soros, let's say he is pumping money into research that has conflicts of interest and are skewed. I figure every other scientists would call them out for it, and it would be so many it couldn't be ignored. Then it would get shut down, or just ignored. I finally ran into this... After looking it up a different way. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm But if anyone has anything else that will help, feel free to post.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/please-don%E2%80%99t-print-this-blog/ Trying to take this article and figure out exactly what happened. I guess why is the modeling data so much better and accurate now; than it was in the 80's; which is what I think the argument is. Since people predicted what would happen, but then this happened instead. Why should we believe science now. What was the scientific consensus back then on the modeling data? How is it so much different now. I guess I'm having a hard time finding scientific information rather than media bulls**t

I got some Tin Foil hat questions about science research funding and Ethics... When it comes to scientific research from federal and private institutions around the world. How much do politicians, spooky people like George Soros, and Evil villains influence the funding and research of these institutions? What's stopping scientists from cooking the books just to keep their jobs...? Is it possible to cover up the facts I learned about global warming recently here? I'm just curious because my friends thinks this, and personally how are you going to argue that... Anyway it really got me thinking what the integrity of the scientific method used today, and how the funding is spread around? I couldn't really find anything in depth on the interworking of the science community and the proccess of coming to a consensus. A video on Youtube is good enough. Also what's this fallacy called? If 1 person is lying, than everyone is lying. If the FDA lies about a drug; than the CDC is lying too. Than You!

I get what you're saying, and I've been reading through the science site you linked. I don't really care at this point. I guess the argument always breaks down into the same Quackery. That just about every scientist in the world is lying about something; and the Democrats are covering it up. No matter how much I try to prove where exactly places like the CDC, NASA, NIH, NOAA get their funding and how it's distributed to research institutions. No matter how much evidence I produce, it's either a worldwide conspiracy... He pretty much thinks that NASA scientists are scared to lose their jobs if they don't support Obama's Global Warming. Which is the same reason why every scientist lie about everything. So, according to his logic: we can't know anything; because everyone is lying. He doesn't get the logic fail, and the conversation deteriorates from there into Spooky people like Bill Gates and George Soros; who are evil people funding and killing the world. Anything past that is me being a Sheeple, Retarded, and blind to the truth... Anyway back to rationality... So with the given information, what's NASA's take on what needs to be done today to curb the problem? How do they feel the problem is being handled through world legislation. Are we going to be fine, or is politics messing up a real way to fix the problem? I just remember the Solar Company fail awhile back, and wonder if that was the US way of trying to curb Global Warming, and if it was... How many failed policies will continue. I'm also looking at it as a worst case scenario, and if nothing is done. The population will die off, and 10,000 people are hiding out in a seed bank. 1. Financial Markets 2. Global Warming 3. Bacon Flavored Zombies

I read all the info, watched the videos, and crunched the numbers, the science and math seem to check out. The video that goes into depth of how much carbon is in the oil reserves and underneath the earth sold me on the math. I figured if NASA is saying it, and the math looks good; it's most likely true. It's a bigger problem than I expected it to be, and it's cool to see how the science has grown with Climate Models and Computing. Also I have full confidence in NASA, and the 97% of people who agree with the consensus; as they're some of the smartest people in the world. The problem isn't how I trust the information, but how do I debunk the information he is giving me? I guess he is with the side that Global Warming is a natural occurrence whether humans exist or not, and that man made Global Warming is a myth made up by Sheeple at NASA! Seriously... He sent me these articles here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html Which I don't know enough about Climate Change and Global Warming to discredit the information, along with the time to do it... One of the articles has a ridiculous amount of info; about something I don't really know anything about, so I guess I don't even know how to examine it. Then there are these articles: http://www.cfact.org/2014/01/28/morano-debates-nye-on-warming-watch-now/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/ http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html http://www.cfact.org/tag/climate-science/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/ Anyway... The reason why I could debunk his claims so easily when it comes to issues like Vaccines, GMO, Fluoridation, Salt, and other things, because I understand a lot about Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. Which makes it easier to read and understand the information. The other day he links me some info Dr. Mercola(Our lord and Savior in medicine) has sent us from above, and I know where to go in the medical journals and chemistry books to point out flaws in his claims. I also watched this discussion which was great... Anyway, I'm putting this issue in my top 3 things to care about in life! 1. Financial Markets 2. Global Warming 3. Zombies

Ya, that actually makes sense. I forgot about genetic mutation, but it has been so long since I've read into genetics. Thanx!

Is there any chance that the shifting climate can cause droughts big enough to create food or water shortages; which can lead to civil unrest among nations in the next 10 - 30 years? I'm not looking for a factual answer, rather an educated guess. My friend is most likely a functioning paranoid delusional schizophrenic who believes Glenn Beck is our lord and savior. In all honesty, I've been trying to get him to trust doctors, modern medicine, and science for 10 years now. His family has issues with vaccines in the past and other medical issues. They're very narrow minded Christians when it comes to science and modern medicine. He pretty much has the mindset of a 12 year old, and has this belief that GMO foods are killing people along with Vaccines, NWO, Alex Jones stuff, George Soros, Spooky People, etc... He lacks the ability to decipher rational factual science from pseudoscience. I've finally made a breakthrough in the past couple of years, pretty much explaining that if NASA says it's true... It's 99.9% true! That scientific studies go through the hands of a lot of scientists and doctors; to cover stuff up like secret killer Adjuvants in Vaccines. Personally, I've been looking up <Insert Ridiculous Claim Here> about Vaccines and GMO's for the past week in a half; I can't keep up with his questions anymore. I'm trying to present the credible evidence, and the fallacies in pseudoscience. At the same time I'm being objective weighing the evidence of both sides, and then giving him my opinion of what I think to be true and why. I know a lot about science, but I don't know everything. Luckily, he knows enough about computing to relate information in the relation of computers. Honestly it has been a fun experience, because I'm learning so much about things I haven't thought about it awhile. I thought I would add that in there, as that is the real reason why I'm here today. Also, Global Warming/Astrology/Environment was something I used to be into when I was a kid, and I had that wonder of where the science is now feeling when he asked. I figure he is going to ask some ridiculous questions that I might ask here, so I'm just saying something so I don't feel like a troll. Anyway he is a good person at heart, and one of the most loyal friend I've known, so I just don't want people to think he's a bad guy... Just a little confused. I want to say when I said *** Given, I didn't mean I don't care about the environment, but I gave up caring about the argument on Global Warming as it was a huge controversy. I just had other interests in science, and I figured I would let NASA and other science societies do what they do best anyway. I might have this mixed up. From what you have presented so far, which is informative btw. It seems like I have a miss conception of the Ice Age being related to Global Warming, which isn't the case. I guess my question would be is there a way to lower Green House gases by introducing another gas into the atmosphere, or some other man made control system? Pretty much without using a cleaner renewable energy source. I meant the viewpoints of these scientific communities. Rather than the viewpoint of pseudoscience vs. Greatness! I was under the impression that the societies agreed on the same concept of Global Warming(Green House Effect), but had small discrepancies in the actual science of it. I guess I read the wiki page wrong and another website wrong.. The article answers the question, thank you! I skimmed though your sources and straight to the point and informative. I'm going to take a closer look tomorrow, and get back with questions if any. I just want to say thanks for the time, and sorry if I was a little in-depth on my motives! Is this what Al Gore talked about in his book, or whatever he won the Nobel Peace Prize for?