pavelcherepan

I think you and I have different understanding of what a blue collar worker is. You seem to imply that it's mostly some sort of unskilled labor while in fact a lot of blue collar professions require just as expensive and long education as a white collar jobs. Take mechanical/electrical/mining engineering, geology (that's me), processing engineering and whole bunch of other highly skilled professions that are considered "blue collar".

You are speaking like blue collar work is something bad. It isn't.

I have corrected my earlier post, but, alas, I was not quick enough.

On a rare occasion I agree with NortonH. Megawatts are a unit of power, not energy. There are two ways that sentence could make sense: "...will produce 400 megawatts of solar and wind power. Period." or "...will produce 400 megawatt-hours of electricity per day". Otherwise this "per day" makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah, I understood that. I was just a little shocked by the number of 'rolleyes:' in his response.

OK, I should have made myself more clear. The situation of eating around the table you used as an example is a complex set of rituals with major religious overtones. There is a saying the grace you mentioned, there's a respect for the more senior members of the family, which forms basis of many religions, such as shinto or taoism, for example. There are also eating and behaviour formalities that are a part of human culture. All-in-all, these is a very complex example of eating ritual and northing of sorts has ever been observed in animals. That's what that quote was referring to. On the other hand I have presented you with simpler versions of "eating rituals" in my earlier post, so you can't really say I'm contradicting myself. Animals do have some ritualistic behaviours, but things like mourning for the dead are not necessarily a sign of "culture" or "religion". Seriously?

Well, there is a field of science that studies religious and ritualistic behaviours in animals, although it might be quite a boring one: There are well documented animal funeral rites though. It's not that. There could be several points I wanted to address from your opening post, but from quite a bit of experience on this forum I know that even if I bring up several points, the discussion will soon just focus on only one of those, therefore, it seems like a wasted effort to start with a long response and it's much better for the flow of discussion to bring points in succession.

It's the latter. Developing rituals requires consciousness.

Oh, that is easier. Take a look at the set of rules followed by a wolf pack or by a lion pride. There are rules as to the order in which animals eat the pray. But, alas, there have been no recorded cases of wolves saying grace before digging in...

Racial features are determined by a large number of genes in the phenotype. When people of two ethnic/racial backgrounds produce an offspring, the features of the child will depend on which of the alleles is dominant in the every pair. In the end you can have a great range of possible results for the case you're discussing, from the child being showing mostly Caucasian features to him/her taking very little from their dad. No.

During the salmon run in northern rivers brown bears would often only eat heads and eggs of the fish they catch and discard all the rest. https://www.nps.gov/katm/learn/photosmultimedia/brown-bear-frequently-asked-questions.htm#29 Additionally, many animals are known to play with their pray before killing. Those are mostly mammals that I know of, cats, dolphins, orcas, for example.

When was the last time you'd seen an energy bill? Regardless of what commodity it is, the energy value is clearly stated in whatever units are in use in the country, such as kWh in Australia. From comparing couple energy bills you can easily see that the same amount of money can buy you a different amount of "energy". Also, just to remind you that energy is not a "thing", it's a property of a physical object.

This is most definitely false. Although it is a common misconception.

I assume the original post was referring to "food energy", something that we get through cellular respiration and water in on itself does not have any calorific value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy

Other people and I personally have provided you with links to global climate models and you promised to show some evidence those models contain "fudge factors". If or when I would be interested in studying those models, trust me, I would be reading supporting scientific papers rather than demanding people to do all the ground work for me.

Then do so. Models come with supporting documentation and references in the form of mostly peer-reviewed scientific papers. They already did their homework. And your claims are still void due to lack of any evidence. P.S. It's 5pm in Wollongong so you better hurry with your proof.

Really? Burden of proof lies on the accuser. You made a claim that climate models are not to be trusted. I only said you shall study them first. Burden of proof is on you. I don't have to do anything to prove my position as I have none. Well, sure you have. Would you be so kind as to provide examples, rather than keep making empty claims as you have been for the last 4 pages?

If you feel like someone is acting towards you in a way that violates forums rules, use report function. A model or a theory doesn't have to provide falsification criteria. They can be derived from the model itself. It's only a problem where no falsification is possible. I have absolutely no interest in that. If I did, I would have read relevant papers. No you haven't been. You seem like a reasonably literate person, therefore you are probably familiar with Google ( or any search engine of your preference). Typing "climate model" into search bar provides more than enough information that you so crave. I find it unlikely that it didn't appear to you. Therefore, any claims you made that no information had been made available to you are based on a very shaky ground. People don't have to spoon-feed you, some effort from your end is required.

Please behave yourself. It is relevant, since the help and advice you've been given in abundance are based on that initial premise. If you'd created a topic on discussing validity of climate modelling, you'd have gotten very different approach from forum members. That is easy. 1) CESM model with configurations, release notes and experimental information: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/scientifically-supported.html 2) EdGCM model with all relevant information on the workings of said model: http://edgcm.columbia.edu/support2/supplemental/ 3) CM2.x climate models. I've linked the page with scientific publications providing the basis for the model: http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/references/ If what you want to discuss is the validity of climate models, creating a topic "Validity of climate models" would have been an open and upfront way. What you are currently doing is not.

It's not your position, I fear, it's your general behaviour that is unpopular. You came with initial premise that you need help with your son's school project and to that regard you have been given a clear advice on what would kind of scientific inquiry would be reasonable to perform for a high-schooler. Instead of following a good advice from studiot and strange you decided to derail discussion into that of climate change denial, which appears to have been your goal all along. People don't like these kind of stunts. In addition to those, you have been provided clear examples of climate models. You're free to investigate and scrutinise those to your heart's content, but instead you keep ignoring what information you've been provided, but instead keep pushing with your agenda, which I can only summarise to: "Climate change models can't be trusted, since they are taken for granted on the basis of authority, not independently scrutinised and don't follow scientific methodology" Good luck with that, but you'll find little sympathy for trickery and misdirection on these forums.

Seriously? Would you shoot Jon Snow too? Do you even have a heart?!

Not surprising. It doesn't happen very often now, does it? Just act as if nothing happened.

There's already a dedicated forum here: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/7-astronomy-and-cosmology/

No idea. Hopefully someone who understands Riemannian geometry can answer.

Stalin's photoshop.