bascule

This month's Discover had a cool article: "The Future of Terrorism" Regarding the question of the subject, it really seems to me like people are being much more pro-active about thinking about potential terrorist scenarios and how to avoid them. One they mentioned, which hasn't been addressed, is a cyanide plant in Brooklyn (I was reading about this right as I was about 10 miles from the plant in question!) which, if bombed, could disperse enough cyanide to kill up to 100,000 people. Yikes!

I use "replaced" here in the context of a new technology becoming the de facto standard

The answer in general relativity is that objects with mass bend/warp the space around them, causing nearby objects to be attracted to them.

You still refuse to confirm what it is you feel is unevidenced. Why is this? Asking for empirical evidence that "man is causing global warming" is like asking for empirical evidence that man evolved from single cell organisms. The amount of evidence required to corroborate that assertion is enormous. So let me ask you this: Will you at least admit that CO2 is a first order climate forcing?

I've come to the conclusion that you selectively ignore information which corroborates the scientific consensus: that anthropogenic forcings are primarily responsible for shifting the Earth's radiative imbalance. You still haven't told me what "empirical evidence" you find lacking. Do you seriously contend that we lack scientific knowledge that CO2 is the primary climate forcing affecting the radiative imbalance of Earth's climate system? I think I should write you off as a lost cause. You lack a basic understanding of elementary climate science. You ask for evidence, then ignore it when it is presented. You're no better than a creationist who ignores evidence of evolution when presented and continues to spout that it has no scientific basis.

If you could sequence enough DNA fragments, you could eventually reconstruct their entire genome inside of a computer via statistical analysis. This may seem like a far-off, impossible goal requiring an obscene amount of CPU power, but that's the same way the Human Genome project was seen and thanks to the Internet and rapid advances in the rate of gene sequencing the project was completed ahead of schedule.

So what is it that you're asking to be evidenced? That CO2 is the primary forcing affecting the Earth's radiative imbalance? The IPCC report is full of hundreds of tables of very specific information. When have I ever claimed that? I worked for a climate science research group for 5 years studying global warming with a number of different GCMs and mesoscale atmospheric models. However I certainly do not have a degree in atmospheric science.

Dr. Dalek, I was going by the numbers at the bottom of the page. As SkepticLance pointed out, I'm talking about increases in CO2. That graph is in reference to atmospheric CO2 as a whole.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/NEWS01/606210311/1002 Insane!

I said I was done, but you're infuriating Yes, those tables and tables of data are just pulled out of their ass. That isn't empirical evidence either! Seriously SkepticLance, you're worse than a Creationist who claims there's no evidence of evolution.

However it's comparing the effect of water vapor to all other greenhouse gasses. The subject at hand is whether the increase in CO2 is coming from primarily natural or anthropogenic sources. In other words, that graph has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. And it's all you presented. You're back at square one. Meanwhile, I've presented an entire chapter of the IPCC report which documents evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily anthropogenic in origin. Why don't you start by reading that? Why don't you leave the interpreting of graphs to the experts, since clearly they confuse you?

The graph is not about natural vs. anthropogenic CO2 emissions. How's that? If you're going to challenge my assertion, please find a scientific paper. This is really getting tedious. You're trying to argue against me using something which cites the same source as I do, and that source clearly states that increases in CO2 are anthropogenic in origin. Unless you can find another source, you're flat out wrong.

It's moot anyway. The source they use corroborates my claim.

Your source on this is "Unions for Jobs and the Environment"? And not a scientific paper but a slideshow. And who do they cite as a source? IPCC 1995. Plus you're completely misinterpreting the graph. Please read chapter 3 of the IPCC (2001) report

Looks like the transistor has some life in it yet

Yes, we do. Of course global warming is driven by a number of factors, and most of your arguments overlook this completely. These factors are known as "climate forcings". There are natural and anthropogenic forcings. This is basic climate science knowledge. How much research have you actually done? Here is a breakdown of climate forcings from the IPCC report. Some of these are better understood than others. However, the role of greenhouse gasses is well understood: As you can see, anthropogenic forcings cause both warming and cooling effects on the climate system. Reflective aerosols, for example, cause a dimming effect (i.e. "global dimming"), particularly sulfates. As you can see, the biggest driver is CO2. The vast majority of CO2 comes from anthropogenic sources. Yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of the nature of climate forcings. Why is this? In thousands upon thousands of scientific papers. I linked one of them (the one my ex-boss did) for you. Are you going to read it, or are you going to pretend it doesn't exist then keep asking for evidence? Here's the IPCC report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ Please read "The Scientific Basis". It extensively documents the empirical evidence you claim doesn't exist. Your approach is no different from a creationist asking for empirical evidence of evolution, then ignoring it when it's provided. I'd like to stop this for now, at least until you're done with your debate with herpguy. As he said, I should probably leave some debating for him. But seriously, can you actually read the IPCC report?

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060619/full/060619-6.html I can't help but think that what's being described here: Sounds an awful lot like the "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" Christopher Langan describes in the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6DBn0BncMk Soo... what the hell? The MPAA is getting our government to threaten trade sanctions against Sweden because some of their citizens run a service which facilitates technology for pirating movies. The Pirate Bay hosts no illegal content, only metainformation, and the Swedish government has determined that this is legal. Why does the MPAA get priority over US companies who rely on Swedish products? What about US citizens who use Swedish products? Should they all suffer just so the MPAA gets their way? This is absolutely ridiculous. Words cannot express my contempt. I absolutely loved in the interview in the end when the reporter asks "Why are you taking your orders from a lobbyist in Hollywood?" I say we pass a law classifying lobbyists as a subhuman species, then declare open season on them.

You make it sound like I accept that .999... = 1 because it's the word of experts. That isn't the case. I accept it because I have seen probably a good hundred proofs that it's the case, all of which were simple and valid, whereas I have never seen a proof that .999... != 1 (which I deemed valid) I mean seriously, what more do you need than 1/3 = .3333..., 2/3 = .66666..., 3/3 = .99999... = 1?

I had one of these episodes (i.e. I felt like something, substantially smarter than myself, talked to me). After awhile I grew increasingly skeptical that it was anything meaningful besides the meaning I derived from the experience, which I believe stands on its own. I was inebriated on multiple substances at the time. I believe that explains the origin of my feelings. It was a bizarre, wonderful, indescribable experience, but in the end I believe it all took place in my head. There is evidence of intelligence manifesting in one place, and one place only: brains. (although it's growing increasingly arguable that intelligence, in a weak or narrow sense, is being developed inside of computers) There is no evidence of intelligence behind quantum events. Those attempting to argue so include brilliant and highly credible quantum physicists, including Roger Penrose, author of one of the most comprehensive physics books out there, The Road to Reality. However, when Penrose's arguments for quantum consciousness were peer reviewed by those who work in fields dealing in the scientific study of consciousness, including cognitive scientists and neurophysiologists (both of whom Penrose thoroughly derides at the beginning of his book on the subject of quantum consciousness, Shadows of the Mind), his arguments are thoroughly obliterated. It becomes quite clear that while Penrose is a brilliant physicist, he has gross misconceptions about the ways in which the brain and consciousness operate. Furthermore, he attempts to make mathematical arguments against the computability of consciousness, which were shown to hinge on a terrible fallacy by mathematicians. That's about all I have to say on this issue. I'm not completely convinced that my experience did not involve some sort of non-local connection to an intelligence greater than my own. However, I find the much more reasonable explanation to be I was intoxicated and the experience was a direct result of that intoxication.

Have I ever mentioned the saxophone rules? Gerry Rafferty - Baker Street WHAM! - Careless Whisper Bob Seger - Turn the Page Oh yeah, can't forget this: Righteous Brothers - Unchained Memory Hmm, one more... this is the first song I ever loved. I was probably 4 years old: Crowded House - Don't Dream It's Over

Well, the original point I was trying to make was how frustrating it can be for individuals to accept something which is counterintuitive. Intuitively, I think it's very hard for people to accept that .999... = 1 because we cannot intuitively represent an infinitely repeating decimal to ourselves. We know .9 != 1, .99 != 1, .999 != 1, etc. so it seems like no matter how many times you do that you will never reach 1. And clearly, the entire concept of infinity is counterintuitive, because we spend our entire lives interacting with the finite. Reading through that thread, that's all I see. People try to represent infinity to themselves as a sort of number because that's the intuitive approach, and rather than being infinity, it becomes a very large quantity, to the point that you can have "an infinite number of zeros with a 1 on the end" or some other such nonsense which can be added to .999... to equal 1. I'm just amazed at how frustrating counterintuitive concepts can be for people. All that frustration would be abated if they simply accepted the repeated proofs and their inability to create counterproofs. But really, I think what it comes down to is the symbols interfering with the interpretation...

I'm amazed by how many people fail to accept repeated proofs of .999... = 1 utilizing multiple methodologies. Don't read the body of this blog, just read the comments: http://polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2006/06/no_im_sorry_it_.html There are some rather intelligent people making revprez-style bombasitc arguments towards the contrary. Why? What fundamental misunderstanding compels these people?

Let me answer again: Read the NRC report. Or the IPCC report. All of these are chock full of empirical evidence of anthropogenically forced global warming.

Pangloss, would you consider borrowing 25% more than what you earn each year to be sustainable economically?