StringJunky

Look, just get over it, he was cleverer than you.

Yes. United we stand, divided we fall. - another Pink Floyd quote. We do tend to have a stiff upper lip, so, we value stoicism.

In Politics, which I don't follow too much here, it seems more of a free-for-all and I suspect people glad-slap with a green one when they agree with someone and not necessarily on the quality of the argument. Objectivity tends to wander more in favour of emotions and ideology; just like real-life I suppose.

You've lost me. For example?

Which is your country?

Hopefully, the rep system, on a per-post basis, does have an effect, otherwise it would be pointless. If a person is being offensive or wrong-headed in some way one would hope that the administration of a red one or two will temper future posts from that person in a more congenial direction. I think all the regular committed members help police for poorly issued rep points and not just the mods. This is not an 'us and them' forum; I don't treat it like that anyway. As far as I'm concerned, we are here to talk about science and the general protocol that goes with it.People only get rollocked or neg repped when they are not conforming in the spirit of this forum's general remit. As far as your OP goes some people probably modify their behaviour and some clearly couldn't care less. .

I would sterilise the water carrying parts on a regular basis to keep bacteria and moulds to a minimum; you don't want those being carried in the mist.

Cool info. Cheers.

The general trend I've noticed in the science research news that I read, regarding nutrition, is that eating a higher proportion of fats and proteins is more conducive to losing weight than biasing your diet in favour of carbs.. Carbs, especially sugars and cereal grains, it seems burn too fast and mess with your glycaemic index causing you to feel hungry more often. These two links, although not what I would call a scientific reference by any stretch, do embody the general direction of the current evolving consensus on sensible nutrition and habits as I understand it. If I had a weight problem this is the way I'd be approaching it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/fat-health_b_4343798.html http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/08/eating-fat-wont-make-you-fat-but-these-10-things-will.aspx

Corn-fed meat doesn't have to have fat in it just because it's corn-fed.

Pound for pound, grass-fed meat is leaner which means it has lower energy density than corn-fed; everything else being equal. You've got a choice: pony up the money so you can eat more volume of grass-fed meat or eat less corn-fed for the same calories, and cheaper as well. Corn-fed doesn't have to be fatty; use your eyes.

Einstein used maths to follow up that observation. A snippet from his paper on the subject of Brownian Motion: http://r.duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.physik.fu-berlin.de%2F~kleinert%2Ffiles%2Feins_brownian.pdf

Maths art (images) and English are techniques of communication. You don't 'talk' in physics; it's not a language. This is the point I'm focussed on.

Which system transfers information from one mind to another with the highest fidelity, with regard to the intent of the author.: English, Art or Maths? The one with the least potential ambiguity in interpretation is the best one for the purposes of describing and sharing scientific ideas.

Yes, in life in general, but scientifically numbers and their relations are the only useful means that scientists can share exactly ...it's their machine-code; to use an analogy.

Do you think scientists are talking about climate effects that ordinary people can't directly relate to? If, for example, the emphasis was more on oxygen depletion, people might associate directly on a more visceral level about the problem; they could intuitively imagine about difficulty breathing. It might create a greater sense of urgency and cooperation in the general population. Oxygen levels are going down and there's no way anyone can trick their way out of that observation.

Most people are geared towards qualitative and material descriptions that relate to their physical senses, so analogies that make use of them are the only way to get quantitatively derived ideas across. Unless people make the effort to learn sufficient maths that's the best they are going to get.

My pet idea is to get more marine algae photosynthesising by creating solar or wave-powered mechanical upwellers, lifting more nutrients off the ocean floor than occurs naturally. Make everywhere look like the North Sea ...bye bye blue sea.

We need more sustainable green stuff.

Yes you are right. I was taking the baseline as 100%, which was wrong. That's an even worse prognosis: 25 000 years. It will be significantly less than that I would think if other things were factored in as it depleted.

We are losing 19 oxygen molecules, per million oxygen molecules, per year. We know, from my post, the lowest survivable level is 11%. So, 100% - 11% = 89%. 89% of 1 million is 890 000. We need to find how many 19's go into 890 000 which will give the number of years to use up 89%. 46 842 years.

I would concur with acme that metaphysics is philosophy and it can't be a science because it's analytical methods and conclusions are purely qualitative, whereas science is primarily quantitative, relying very much on numerical analysis.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/units-and-terms. In that same site it says we are losing about 19 O 2 molecules/million/year. Assuming no other effects, that gives us 46 842 years for the concentration drop to 11%. This is what will be survivable near sea level. Edit: acme beat me

The distribution of particles was probably unbalanced towards one end so it was attracting them at a higher rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation