swansont

dock has been banned as a sockpuppet of redstone, Trần Thành, Energizer and the logic00x triplets

That was the graph that clearly shows temperature increasing over the last ~140 years. So no, your point doesn't stand. The animation shows that looking at only a few locations wouldn't give us an accurate read on what is happening, since there are fluctuations (i.e. weather happens) Water and land each have some specific heat capacity, so their temperature will rise or fall if the absorb or release energy. Q = mc∆T If I measure in enough places to be representative of the whole, I can sum up the Q for all those areas and figure out if heat was absorbed or emitted overall. The worldwide average ∆T is representative of that value, which (as Area54 pointed out) is easier for non-experts to grasp. Saying the global average increased by 1ºC is saying we absorbed enough energy for the whole surface to increase by 1º even though some areas saw a larger increase and some saw a smaller increase, or possibly a decrease, because this is not a system in steady-state

How do you figure that? “This animation shows monthly temperatures for January–December 2019 compared to each month's 1981-2010 average.” 1981-2010 is not considered pre-industrial by most historians

Let’s see an analysis, then. Quantify the “tiny deviations in the energy content of an atmosphere” and also the effect of pressure on the measurements. Is this a measurement of the atmosphere or the surface (i.e. land and water)? climate.gov suggests it’s the latter https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature (they also disagree the with “tiny” characterization of the energy deviations)

It was pointed put that your car analogy is poor, so you go ahead and use it again. As Area54 observed, all you are doing is attacking a strawman. Average temperature is simply a proxy for total energy content that is perhaps easier to grasp than if one used energy units. That energy is either from a source that has changed or it’s being trapped from existing sources. Science tells us it’s the latter.

But you haven’t presented evidence of this. You presented anecdotes, which are not evidence. You have not presented anything to do with evolution, nor any data over a span of time.

But your thesis is not that men and women are different, it’s that they are are not (or are less different than a few thousand years ago) “female quality” could be taken as chauvinistic, and again, your thesis is that this distinction has gone away, destroyed within 1000 years of adopting agriculture

What would that purport to show? Eliud Kipchoge is the men’s marathon record holder. Height is 5′ 6″, Weight 115 lbs. Is that above or below the average for men? How is this an example of the differences disappearing? IOW, perhaps being short and slight is an advantage in distance running, and marathon runners are not representative examples of the population. That’s OK. I didn’t watch it.

Anecdotes are not evidence, and bodybuilding (plus the possible steroids) is not evolution

The context being what it is, the comparison regarding the earth is to an earlier state, in which average temperature was roughly constant.

Not necessarily useful, true. It’s like the joke about the statistician whose head was in the oven and feet were in an ice bath, who declared “On average, I’m comfortable” But it doesn’t mean that applies to other situations. If you want to rebut the usefulness as applied to climate, you’ll have to analyze the actual problem. Your analogy is poor, and not a substitute for science. If the average temperature is going up, it means more energy is coming in than going out. Where exactly this is temperature increase is happening is unimportant if that’s what you are trying to determine.

Which is something we point out now and again. If you’re going to make a suggestion, you need to take care not to add undue burden to the staff, who would prefer to spend their time here in discussion rather than moderation duties. IOW, one should avoid being cavalier with someone else’s time. “add subforums” is extra work. Without making a case for why that’s better for staff, it’s a nonstarter.

Whichever one you want it to. You can choose your own coordinate system. You want that to be the z direction, it can be z. If you want it to be y, it can be y. You can call it the first, second or third dimension. It won’t affect the physics. (coordinate system choice will affect how hard it is to solve a physics problem, though)

One example of education breeding better education. If the parents don't know this information, they can't pass it along. Puts the kid behind others who know their way. If parents are illiterate, they aren't going to read to their children, which is something that boosts kids' education. If the parents are working multiple jobs, they might not have the time to read to their kids, or take them to the library. So poverty is an impediment. (and of course poverty has connections with racial inequality) In the US, the education system is funded by property taxes, so in poorer areas there is less funding. Not as many resources. Another way poverty is an impediment. (there are more, too. Health is anther factor. Nutrition.) Bootstrapping is possible, but it's still an impediment, regardless of how many examples one gives of people doing it. It's wrong to say barriers did not hinder people, if all you know is the result. All you can say is they did not stop them.

! Moderator Note Let's keep to the topic of calculus here. If you want to ask about this (or anything else), please open another thread (in physics, in this case)

If MSC chooses to return (with perhaps a slightly thicker skin), then perhaps they will be willing to do a little legwork to prove that we should have a these suggested subsections inside of philosophy by providing us with some statistics of how many e.g. logic threads exist already. Maybe going back a year. Along with some examples so we can check the data. In addition, they could also tag their thread titles (e.g. Some title [logic]) so we can track what happens. With that and other suggested subsections (Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics and Phenomenology) You seem to be missing the point. I didn't say we don't apply logic, or that we don't understand logic. I didn't say you don't need to understand logic to do science. I'm saying we don't have to have discussions about logic in order to do good science, which is the kind of discussion you would expect in a logic subsection. You can say the same for math. Physics uses a lot of math But you can have physics discussions independent of the math section, because you don't need to contemplate the purely math considerations. You are using the math, but you are not discussing the math. You can say you need to integrate the force dotted with displacement to get the work — that's a physics question — but that's not a discussion about what a dot product is, or what an integral is, which is what you might discuss in mathematics. IOW, we don't have a mathematics section because you need it to discuss physics. We have a mathematics section because there is a lot of traffic in people discussing mathematics. Which is why "Without logic, no science" is a non-sequitur for making the case of having a logic subforum.

"Military qualities"? Any evidence that evolution happens this quickly? And evidence that sexual dimorphism is disappearing? I'm pretty sure the average height of men is still greater than for women. And weight, strength, etc. We've been doing agriculture for many thousands of years. If it only takes 1000, then there should be none of these differences.

My work colleagues and I manage to do quite a lot of quality science without having discussions that would be put into a “logic” section. What happens when you get a contradiction of the premise in a logical argument?

Nobody is claiming that the site is free of the use of logic. Logic is not a required topic of discussion when discussing science. Feel free to peruse the science threads and see how many of them do not go into discussions of the finer points of logic. IOW, no logic ≠ no logic section But hey, nice strawman.

To follow up on this, the philosophy section has just under 29,000 posts. Physics, chemistry, biology, medical science and mathematics all have more. By a lot, in most cases. That’s one of the reasons they are broken down. Also because we’re a science discussion forum. We include philosophy (and other topics) because there is a natural spill-over in discussions. But the primary focus is science.

Bound systems require a decrease in energy. (If the KE exceeds the magnitude of the PE, the object in question can escape and is therefore not bound.) Normal matter clumps together because their interactions can easily dissipate energy and form bound systems. Gravitational interactions are really bad at dissipating energy. (Gravitational radiation is weak) That’s why DM tends not to clump, or would not (by itself) tend to form a black hole

A reminder that deleting threads on-demand is not our policy. We remove posts that violate the rules. Removal of other posts tends to gum up the discussion. You need to ponder before you post, or do your editing in the time before that option expires.

Tunnel has been banned as a sockpuppet Delberty, Drakes and Brahms

! Moderator Note I will, for the sake of keeping other discussion in line, note that some are even equating religion with literal interpretations of holy books (e.g. as represented by young-earth creationism)

No, not if it’s seawater, or of similar salinity ”Human kidneys can only make urine that is less salty than salt water. Therefore, to get rid of all the excess salt taken in by drinking seawater, you have to urinate more water than you drank. Eventually, you die of dehydration even as you become thirstier.” https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/drinksw.html