foodchain

I agree. Individual metabolisms, and or state of mind simply of the individual while on the drug will have an impact. Personally on a digit block for having a bashed finger nail removed that shots take quite a bit of time to take effect, and during a surgical operation I actually managed to wake up from the gas more then once, it will be somewhat dependent on the situation, or really on the user or the lifespan of that person choosing to be a user in the context of his or her or others environment really. Now with that said, such really applies to anything really. Like the motor biking example. I have witnessed people crash on motorbikes in real life, and it could have easily lead to damage to other people. Automotive machines typically do this on a regular basis. Yet no one is prevented from say owning a monster machine with over 500 hp and some turbo configuration on it. You can really apply this to just about everything really. Its as simple as alcohol. Its legal, but don’t get caught using marijuana! To compound on this issue as is very evident in this debate, its not some empirical issue such as 1 + 1 = 2 of course, yet we still have controls on what a person can do with there life in relation to any particular object.

If anyone can word this better as it seems most the posters get what I am trying to put forward and get more posts as a result on it, feel free to do so. I would like to find out much more on the topic myself.

I would have to agree with klaynos and say its an issue resulting from our biology, or biology/ecology.

Could quantum mechanics replace modern chemistry? Why or why not please, and thank you.

Right but my question is that atoms build into stable structures or molecules, or at least can correct? Then when we go to the atomic level, is there an entire different set of rules for structure? I mean I hear the physics side of it about something collapsing on view to be something else, and I dont know if thats to me because you are simply viewing it or what not, half the time it sounds sort of like a voodoo emplaced rather then saying we don’t know. What I mean is my current understanding of matter from a physics perspective puts things in motion at an atomic level. Is this motion constant? If so I would think that constant motion would at somepoint become visible in molecular structures really. Now I know some isomers can be somewhat systematically unstable, but that’s not what I am getting at. What I mean is a piece of rock left alone for millions of years should at some point like glass change in appearance right, at least on some level. Also for constant movement, where is that energy coming from, more so say for hydrogen up to YT or any element really. Also why are phase changes in matter behave the way they do, I mean such acts as sublimation or from solid to liquid. You would think you could get an atom on some billionth of a degree to sort of hover in the middle right? I think I sort of grasp the physics perspective of matter, but I think a lot of it leaves way to much room for interpretation, and not just from a standpoint of being ignorant of physics in general. I mean the whole uncertainty principle, more so applied to subatomic behavior, it sort of sounds like metaphysics if you ask me, or really something propped up to make the math look better.

So we took survival, and standardized it into some acceptable form people are to abide by, then it should work for them right? If not why not and what will the result be? I don’t think it can be reduced down to simply an on or off function. I mean we do make a society that has patterns or ways of life. You can do private enterprise in which you can lose or win, and its the same with a job. The reality as I see it is we have standardized in a great deal the ways you conduct life, and if you take that away from a person but keep the system the same what is a person to do? Its sort of like denying work to a certain sect of people based on gender or skin color. The other flipside of it is making sure people do not view it as something giving. Jobs should be for people, and available, but if you happen to be a failure then you should also be able to be fired. So its more or less if its a right and to what extent to me, the extent part gets lost in transmission I think. Such as a double felon with a history of violent assaults. How many people would want to hire someone like that on this board? Not many I would wager, but then when that person is faced with obviously what people think about him or her, what are they to do at that point to survive? Living things regardless are bound by the "law" of surviving, so if you want to make a system of law and rule that is to encompass people, which also means this, then it should have to work I would think or you end up with some kind of a "failure" really, such as food riots or high crime. Now right to work to me also does not mean right to have your dream job, or a high paying job or a job with benefits and so on, and of course again like my main point it does seem to really be far more of a complex issue then just do you have the right to work or not. Lastly when getting into a crux of a libertarian society such is utterly a pipedream overall. No one is going to allow life to be a free for all on every level, and if you did it would quickly develop armies, police and drug stores with localized places in which to purchase flesh for consumption. So going with that in mind I do appreciate individual freedom to a point in which the actions are within the individual, such as drugs being legal, all fine until a person does something stupid on the drug, its the same with anything. People are not born in handcuffs but they are free to put themselves there. If we say a job is not a right, then ultimately what its saying is anyone can hire or not hire anyone they want, and I think giving social issues alone that would lead to very negative situations, like what feminism comes from and groups like the Black Panthers. If a person cannot live within the American system, it’s a basic denial of any other right then in my opinion, if we standardize the way of life that is. Equality is not an easy thing, but when you take it away it historically in my opinion seems to only lead to tragic events in our history also, collectively as a specie or a race.

Speaking of Diamonds do you think a nuke could make diamonds rain from the sky? Ok, more to my topic. So does structure such as what gives rise to the form carbon takes on in a diamond only exist at higher then an atomic level, or single atom?

Is the hardiness of a material giving by its bonds or its structure it takes via bonds or configuration in regards to subatomic particles, like the electron configuration for instance. I was on wiki reading up on tanks, as in war, of all things and about armor types. The use DU for instance, more so in the front of the tank and of course various technologies for munitions that would puncture armor and such have evolved also. So going from what I know of say matter and energy, which is not a whole lot, I was wondering exactly what gives rise to strength of a material, being they may be separate in counts of neutrons and so on for example, but all are typically composed of such thing, atoms and elements that is. I have been looking around such as if a certain form of energy interacts differently with the same element, say aluminum for example, but have not come up with much really. So its just a question I thought I might pose here to help my endeavors. So again, what exactly leads to the hardiness of a material, is it bond strength, configuration, or a combination of the two, or is it something else.

Its a ground up type of learning, like most anything. Now I will stop short of saying its probably some aspect of evolution in the sense of a metaphor, but that’s how I look at it. The simple aspect of even knowing what integers are, or real numbers, all of it matters because its a system that relates to itself in many regards. I am in algebra still, lucky for me I only have to do only so much calc and more or less about a year of statistics, but such is fun at times, more so when you become more fluent with the use of a calculator. It is a time consuming event though, so with that my best advice which I guess would hold with anything really is practice makes perfect.

Yes, but don’t you see that its somewhat nothing more then opinion dictating what people can and cant do? I mean guns in the united states account of over ten thousand homicides a year, how many people die from the use of an automobile, is there any need for race cars, what about shopping malls? Do I need to play online video games? I mean where is the definitive objective truth on the issue? People do countless stupid things period in so many different forms its not really funny. In very conservative cultures you really cant do much, in some places women are not allowed to go outside without being clothed from head to toe, because it might cause some reaction or behavior in a person? I mean it is drugs, but it is also very much freedom also. You can simply say its stupid or silly or you don’t like it much, and that is fine, but its also not much of a position really. I mean sure people can get pain relief from other drugs or chemicals, but why not marijuana, because they could get high, I mean forbid someone wanting to get high, they might enjoy it, like someone gets stimulus of enjoyment from playing football. The bottom line to me is a society in America has countless possible pitfalls when it comes to behavior items in the society can lead to, yet we pick and choose what we allow via laws what people can do with there lives. These laws are for the most part temporary and flawed, or else they would never need to change. I guess we should ban nitrous in whip cream, or hey, how about gasoline, people can get high off of that also! I mean sometimes I have put off responsibility to seek the enjoyment of reading a book even... I mean drugs should be illegal because they are addictive, it simply makes no sense. Drugs should be illegal because it can lead to negative situations, it already does and has been doing such for thousands of years. The war on drugs in America has been going on for decades, and every drug you want can be purchased in any quantity really in any city you go to overall. The illegal matter of it props up criminal empires, produces impure drugs such as kids dying from false LSD that’s actually more or less produced with arsenic. Its not doing any real good overall, and it is in a basic sense a denial of individual liberty and of course the pursuit of happiness. I could care less for various substance such as meth or crack to even exist, but on that note I can notice a failed policy and one that is above and beyond an abuse on people at large while being a failure also.

So many good points as to why drugs should be legal or illegal, its nice to see it actually. Personally I could care less to have some methead zombie addict wondering the streets near my home, nor could I care to be on the road with a drunk driver, or could I care to live near some slightly crazed and aggravated person with an arsenal of weapons, or could I care to live next to some toxic waste dump. I like the point made by dax in some regards. A form of a confidence test, for a majority of people that mess with meth end up making mistakes because of such use and end up in jail or prison from crime not directly related to meth such as possession, but by crimes because there lives slowly became nothing but a support for the addiction, such as robbery for instance, there is a clear link of such drug use and crime because the addiction is debilitating to the persons ability to hold a socially acceptable life, such as going to work. On that note though, what percent would it be when a drug should be banned, and does the fact that such is a harm to society at large then become applicable to anything or everything? Also how to you rule out the idea it could be the product of a "moral crusade" belonging to a certain pattern of thought, such as a particular religion for instance, or by political motivations alone, such as the war on drugs was or become a legit angle to raid property and even go into foreign nations, at least in America it has become such. I don’t think we have the tools to bring such a confidence test online because it would require objectivity to be regular and paramount in political or social institutions and personal behavior. Then you have the idea that there are drugs that really pose no real threat, such as marijuana which to date has no case of death related directly to use anywhere in the world, such as an overdose of marijuana. The statistics around alcohol alone paint a far more damaging picture. The reality of it is the illegalization of hemp and the birth of the pulp industry in America are surprisingly close. Marijuana I think was outlawed in U.S history in 1937. The use of hemp alone, not the THC the typical user is after has a multitude of applications and in itself should not be illegal, its a hardy plant that is no where near as damaging on soil as many other plants currently is use and has a broad and dynamic range of applications. Not to mention the medicinal properties of that drug, which are simply positive in the regard it lessens pain, is barely addictive and not hard to withdraw from, and can give a patient an appetite, all of which is documented if you want to read on it, from a varying a large source of bodies. It has a negative stigma attached to it though, I mean refer madness is bad while you smoke a cigarette and drink a fifth of J&D, which is socially so cool or accepted. I think I will have to cut my rant short here though, as the post is getting rather long in the tooth I just noticed.

From what or where do you get that? The amount of extinction alone that global warming would truly bring theoretically speaking or standing at this point alone should be enough to want to stop it. I mean the play these specials on national geographic of all things, its in any real mainstream science magazine, its pretty common anymore that global warming truly only equates to a bad thing for life in general. one last thing, do you think that our activity which is being processed by science as having an impact on global climate at some point is just going to stop, I can only wonder the concentration of CO2 alone will be by 2100 giving the current rates of production alone, if those are not going to change drastically themselves. As for positions people might hold, I was just at a website that had 2000 signatures of scientific professionals that do not agree with global warming, and I read a lot of rhetoric as to why, but I could not find one single scientific study to support why. Survival being what it is I don’t find this shocking at all, but in that regard its survival overall that’s an issue with global warming. What if in say fifty years the weather changes in some parts of Africa so bad that they can lose food production rates by 50%, who is going to fit that bill or care at that point? Yes, global warming might not be sound to various world economies at this point but such does not have to be the case, we can switch to a portfolio of energy systems alone, the limits are only based but our motivation to get there really. The greatest part of it all is the reality of global warming understood, or even ecology for that matter would basically prop up the ability to actually save ecosystems and habitat our of necessity which should actually be able to conserve most of the living organisms that inhabit such, or conserve biomass in general, from a scientifically valid position, something that has been needed for a rather long time actually. The last hurdle is people are not going to stop breeding anytime soon, so consumption is only going to increase and increase, by 2100 the levels of human population alone might be something the planet as a total ecology might not be able to support, let alone everything else living. So overall, its a gross mess, most of the politics of the issue typically are surrounding the so called skeptics of the issue anymore, such is even more evident in America were it took so long for our president to finally be able to come out and say its real and people are having an impact via behavior, though such was something of a victory, I just really have no idea what its really won.

Like nuclear energy for the most part I think the space age really was a figment to help achieve various objectives the U.S government in general supported during the cold war. I just don’t see any real moon colony coming to existence in terms of NASA’s doing until somehow the make the private sector want to get into it. The real cost of a real colonization of the moon to me at this point from what I understand would be rather high, and I don’t think the government or NASA could sell really the need to divert so much tax money to it, Not to mention simply the fact we are still working on launches and not that long ago that terrible incident which occurred on reentry. Though if the money was present and people were motivated, I could see it easily becoming a reality in time.

That was my point actually, that we don’t know fully what’s required for life to exist or what forms it can exist in, thank you though.

Respect:confused: is this planet of the apes or a debate on global warming. You just reiterated your idea that peer reviewed papers or studies are not being used in the debate, how should I react to that statement really? Do you offer any advice, or simply are you getting frustrated? I laid out a point about my sources, how would I endanger myself, did I say I only use strict science papers at any point in any of my responses? Heck, I even use journalistic views and reports;) I mean your point if valid would imply then a two way street in regards to both sides of this coin. To say a report like the IPCC is not sound or peer reviewed, well, I don’t know how to respond to it, there is probably more review to that in terms of simply grammar alone then most anything else I have looked at as a counter argument, or any real scientific counter argument really. Then again following your logic or stance on it, such would make any reports by say the EPA, or NOAA non scientific also, or for that matter much anything I have posted or will post I guess. Here, I would like for you to read the following and tell me what you think. "One of the basic foundations of modern science, whether it be medicine, physics or climatology, is "peer review." Peer review means new scientific discoveries, ideas, and implications are not accepted or considered valid until they have been scrutinized, critiqued, and favorably reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same area or scientific field. The peer-review process commonly takes place as a prerequisite to the publication of a scientific paper. When scientists wish to publish papers on their scientific discoveries, the journal to which the paper is submitted usually will ask two or more other scientists in the same or a similar field (i.e., scientific peers) to review the paper.These reviewers will rigorously evaluate the work to make sure that the results are well supported by the data. If the paper passes the review and is accepted for publication, we can assume that the science is well-founded and valid. Sometimes the paper does not pass the review and is not published, but more often, the reviewers ask questions that the authors of the manuscript have to address satisfactorily before their paper is published. Not all published scientific work is peer-reviewed. When a scientist or informed non-scientist wishes to evaluate new or controversial scientific papers, one of the first things they usually ask is if the paper was published in a journal that requires critical peer-reviews. Journals such as "Science" and "Nature" are among the most highly regarded journals in terms of the peer-review process. Articles and opinions published in newspapers or popular-press magazines (for example, "Time" and "Newsweek") are not peer-reviewed, and thus must be considered with caution if they are not based on a peer-reviewed scientific papers. Moreover, some "scientific" books and journals do not involve rigorous peer-reviews, readers must be careful not to put much scientific faith in what is presented in these books or journals. The peer-review process sets a scientific standard; we know that peer-reviewed scientific work has been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation by experts in the appropriate field and has been judged valid. All of the scientific journal results reported in this www site, "A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming," have undergone this level of scientific peer-review." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html "Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age." In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html "Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time. The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions: Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century. The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html Make sure to read the links, for they directly apply to the issue at hand.

Not really. I know personally I have posted various links of data with the idea that such was not only conducted by numerous scientists, but scientists from all around the world. Its not only this but what about noaa for instance? The reality is not much of any of the substantiated works that I have posted links to about global warming receive really little to no attention in the regards of rebuttals in a like form, such as a scientific peer reviewed document that would falsify such works... I am really working on not going into the rhetoric angle this debate can bring on, thus why I truly just point to such being real, as in global warming or global climate being impacted by our behavior from such a broad spectrum of bodies, from an education institution, to the latest IPCC reports, to the EPA, noaa, and even independent bodies such as realclimate.com. For the record, heartland.com for instance not only is a right wing think tank, which is ideologically opposed to anything that deals with global warming, and in American such groups typically not only shun it but our current president is actually in hot water over the fact various memos have surfaced and other paperwork that shows government scientists being asked to not only avoid the use of such terms but reports being doctored. Its actually been made illegal in many regards to talk about polar bears if you work in some fields in the government, because there habitat, or the destruction of is something applicable to global warming. The list of respectable scientific bodies, both government and non government based, separated by not only being independent but in different places in the world that generate reports via sound scientific practice is rather large and growing, small scale alarmism is not an adequate term for it, rather such is misdirection overall, such as saying realclimate.com accounts for all the data presented so far in the debate, which is simply not true in any regard. So what are you really saying overall? I mean the links as you would have it are not scientific, so I guess the computer simulations are not either, or really none of it is, would that also include anything you present as evidence, or is this yet again another misdirection in the false guise of skepticism, is it a debate or who is better or posses more guile with words anymore. I mean I could say the IPCC report is nothing but a fallacy produced by people that have no idea what they are doing, but that’s not very positive to the debate now.

Really, I am not posting in this thread because I want to keep it around, I have a valid reason in my own opinion. Time, many questions about it, that’s great, not really what we are talking about but it applies. What is time based on, well going from the dictionary its a continuum or some would say a dimension in which allows for such to be put into names and numbers for physical judgment of whatever absolute reality time might actually be, I for one don’t think we have it yet but hey, I am not a physicist. So in relation to the debate question, what’s the point I ask? If the world hundreds of years ago made a week nine days long and factored the rest into our solar systems environment such as orbits would it be some great cause for alarm? I mean why do we have a leap year? If the day was only 23 tigers long instead of 24 hours, and each tiger was a different unit of measurement such as instead of second you had turtle, would it make some profound difference to anybody as long as it worked in regards to the natural world? I mean we call winter because its a particular event if you will, that occurs in a timely fashions right? The day gets shorter though, and in some places during the year the sun never sets or comes up for the matter! So really I am not against change, but I would really like to think about the reason requesting the change and does it hold any real rational or positive reason for such. I mean the watchmaker might be blind, so such is why we need systems of time to be developed, but that does not mean we have to be blind, and that’s why we have physicists I think. You can cut a unit of time down to whatever smallest possible fashion, and then into whatever longest unit of such, and everything in-between, but in reality the time it takes for the sun to rise and set is just that, the name or system around it is based on our ability to understand the reason we need to word time to exist in the first place, not about how time should be in relation to us, its kind of like arguing with gravity and jumping from a height to mock its rule really in my opinion. Well anyways, thanks for the time to read this!

I have no idea but I think it has something to do with gravity, I hope you dont waste a bunch of time following this possible dead end though.

what is that, four or something:confused: Sometimes the intensity of math simply turns me away, then I realize though that such exists for good reasons overall, or at least positive reasons, or I would at least hope so.

Not to cut into something ongoing, just a quick question. So the physical phenomena of a body, say a galaxy in reference to say how light behaves, back the physical phenomena again, is what is used as a gauge or a reference to size of that body or its influence? I am still a bit puzzled on it though. I get this from the idea that in math, many things can come to exist that more often then not through research and experimentation come to exist, is this surely so with what you are talking about? I mean down to the smallest levels of particles and so on, I just don’t know if such has been factored into the equations or even if that is necessary, yes its a bit of a particle bias but I do tend to hold one, even while not really knowing what I am talking about half the time.

"Radiation from the Sun peaks at a wavelength of around 10nm, according to Wien's Law with a temperature of 5780K. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent at this wavelength, so the radiation can pass through, However, the re-emitted radiation from the Earth peaks at a wavelength of about 500nm, due to the lower surface temperature of the Earth (about 287K on average). As can be seen from figure 1, the Earth's atmosphere is opaque at this wavelength. Effectively, the radiation can pass through the atmosphere inwards but most of it cannot pass outwards. The amount of radiation which escapes is dependent on the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - carbon dioxide alone accounts for about 26% of the greenhouse effect, and the effects of carbon dioxide are specifically known as the Callendar effect. The wavelengths of radiation which are absorbed by a gas can be worked out using quantum mechanics, and it can be shown that heteronuclear diatomic and triatomic gas molecules absorb at these wavelengths, while homonuclear molecules don't - this is why water and carbon dioxide absorb this radiation but oxygen and nitrogen do not. The process normally referred to as the greenhouse effect is misnamed - greenhouses stay warmer than the air outside because the Sun heats up the ground inside the greenhouse, and the glass panes prevent this warm air from rising and flowing away from the area - convection is prevented. However, the "greenhouse effect" on the Earth prevents radiation loss occurring, not convection. Nevertheless, the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at least partly responsible for global warming. The concentration of these gases is currently the highest it has been for 420000 years - 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are produced as a result of human activities per year. As discussed in the basic explanation of the effects of carbon dioxide, global warming could have disastrous consequences for the whole planet. Anything we can do to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or at least keep it at a constant value, must be done to help prevent these consequences." http://www.carboncalculator.co.uk/scientific_effects.php If you would look at models of say Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of primarily CO2 you can notice a change in temperature the closer you are to the surface of the planet. The planet also receives far less solar energy then mercury which is closer and is yet far warmer then mercury. "Carbon Cycle The movement of carbon, in its many forms, between the biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and geosphere is described by the carbon cycle, illustrated in the adjacent diagram. The carbon cycle is one of the biogeochemical cycles. In the cycle there are various sinks, or stores, of carbon (represented by the boxes) and processes by which the various sinks exchange carbon (the arrows). We are all familiar with how the atmosphere and vegetation exchange carbon. Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, also called primary production, and release CO2 back in to the atmosphere during respiration. Another major exchange of CO2 occurs between the oceans and the atmosphere. The dissolved CO2 in the oceans is used by marine biota in photosynthesis. Two other important processes are fossil fuel burning and changing land use. In fossil fuel burning, coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline are consumed by industry, power plants, and automobiles. Notice that the arrow goes only one way: from industry to the atmosphere. Changing land use is a broad term which encompasses a host of essentially human activities. They include agriculture, deforestation, and reforestation. The adjacent diagram shows the carbon cycle with the mass of carbon, in gigatons of carbon (Gt C), in each sink and for each process, if known. The amount of carbon being exchanged in each process determines whether the specific sink is growing or shrinking. For instance, the ocean absorbs 2.5 Gt C more from the atmosphere than it gives off to the atmosphere. All other things being equal, the ocean sink is growing at a rate of 2.5 Gt C per year and the atmospheric sink is decreasing at an equal rate. But other things are not equal. Fossil fuel burning is increasing the atmosphere's store of carbon by 6.1 Gt C each year, and the atmosphere is also interacting with vegetation and soil. Furthermore, there is changing land use. The carbon cycle is obviously very complex, and each process has an impact on the other processes. If primary production drops, then decay to the soil drops. But does this mean that decay from the soil to the atmosphere will also drop and thus balance out the cycle so that the store of carbon in the atmosphere will remain constant? Not necessarily; it could continue at its current rate for a number of years, and thus the atmosphere would have to absorb the excess carbon being released from the soil. But this increase of atmospheric carbon (in the form of CO2) may stimulate the ocean to increase its uptake of CO2 . What is known is that the carbon cycle must be a closed system; in other words, there is a fixed amount of carbon in the world and it must be somewhere. Scientists are actively investigating the carbon cycle to see if their data does indeed indicate a balancing of the cycle. These types of investigations have led many scientists to believe that the forests of the Northern Hemisphere are, in fact, absorbing 3.5 Gt C per year, and so changing land use is actually removing carbon from the atmosphere (~2 Gt C/year), not increasing it as the diagram shows. Experiments are ongoing to confirm this information." http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/efcarbon.html It is a well known fact that human activity produces a large amount of CO2 on a regular and accelerating basis, CO2 is already established as scientific fact to behave as a greenhouse gas. Here is another interesting link, it has a few graphics in which I would suggest viewing. "Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in the Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in the Atmosphere A closer look at the carbon dioxide changes within the last thousand years can be seen in the graphic on the left. The concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, were measured in the bubbles from an Antarctic ice core from Law Dome near Australia's Casey Station. The Law Dome ice core is at a location where the snow accumulation is much higher than at Vostok. Thus, the time scale for the Law Dome core is expanded and it can provide us with more detailed information about recent climate changes. Concentrations of carbon dioxide measured in the air bubbles trapped in the ice are shown in Antarctic ice core from Law Dome near Australia's Casey Station. Concentration of Carbon Dioxide from trapped air measurements for the DE08 ice core near the summit of Law Dome, Antarctica. (Data measured by CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research from ice cores supplied by Australian Antarctic Division). Dr. T.H. Jacka, Glaciology Program,Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre and Australian Antarctic Division. QUES. a: Explain what is significant about the change in carbon dioxide concentration with time as viewed in the graphic? QUES. b: What energy consuming and carbon dioxide producing events were taking place in most of the Northern Hemisphere at the time, (1850, 1900 and years following), of the dramatic increase in the carbon dioxide concentration? " http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA3.html Lastly though if not off topic is another interesting link. "Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading". http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Yes but that is factoring in lots of unknowns really. The only life we have been able to study is currently that found on earth, and in earth not all life or where it has adapted to live in is not known also. Just going from the ocean the rate of discovery for new species is rather high, not to mention the environments some of them occupy is actually deadly to anything previous to it. Plus going from Hanford, Washington, bacteria has found a way to survive in toxic waste and extreme heat. The other idea is that evolution may have made the current molecular or biochemical reality of life something so eroded if you will from the early means that basically reverse engineering such is probably highly unlikely, and that the traces of evolution will suffer from such unless very primitive life is fossilized somewhere. Going from records in time it was millions of year gaps in the most primitive life, such as bacteria making any real changes past that stage, I doubt many people can actually envision millions of years of time passing really. So this is problematic is some regards, in that life of all things might have formed in very small or in the nano scale inside of rocks somewhere developing a cell wall that’s sort of like how stainless steel has a natural oxide layer, but such is purely speculative of course. Then when you move onto statistics this takes a root in thought because we can only use the frame of biological understanding we currently hold, which is life on earth in which to gauge how life could come about or exist really without speculation, somewhat like movies similar to aliens, which is a cool series of movies really, but that is off topic. Now without knowing for certain conditions that can lead to "life" or what the ultimate definition of such is even its really hard to quantify such. Now here is another loop, how many planets exist in the universe? How many solar systems? I would have to say the number of such is probably close to the statistics actually, so for every billion planets you get a condition that favors life, or for every two billion, I mean what’s the number and what empirical data actually supports this quantitative statement? I am still very interested in the idea that mars may have been starting life, more so for all the information that could give us, more so knowing about the geology of mars and its place in the solar system. I mean they found bacteria on a rock from mars, it was fossilized and in regards to size the only other life that was found to match it was found in Australia, and the mars rock was far removed from that location, but overall taking everything into consideration, such as the rock even had traces of biological processes, that it was not conclusive enough to rule it as life from mars.

Speaking of such whatever became of programming based around genetics, or was that simply something I read in a mad magazine somewhere. I think a lot of software issues are heavily dependent of course on the hardware being used, or available, and such is a sort of co-evolution of sorts overall. I remember a while back, I mean years ago, about chemical circuits and the ability they had to hold memory far longer then modern circuits, which greatly reduced the rate in which such had to be refreshed, and then of course quantum computers and so on. So I basically just came to wonder if modern day technology for computers to be programmed was basically going to shift overnight and my degree if I had kept working on it would have been somewhat useless, being such technology would make modern computers seem like something out of the stone age, and the need to program them would have, or at least I imagined, changed drastically to be able to reach the kind of work they were capable of overall. Though nanotechnology is still infant and much work on quantum computers and the sort is a constant endeavor all over the world. In regards to my own programming language idea, I put it forth in another thread, just to not appear totally off topic.

I also forgot this, and again you are right like usual:D "However, a big step was when Cornell and Wieman cooled a small sample of atoms down to only a few billionths (0.000,000,001) of a degree above Absolute Zero! That was what they needed to do to see Bose-Einstein condensation." http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/temperature.html

Ok, I think I understand, so entropy is a definition that can sort of go along with the scientific definition of energy in that regard. Being we say something like steam in a certain mechanical configuration is capable of doing so much work right? The disorder term comes in basically because the energy is "free" to do something and all of it collectively is information in which an uncertainty exists? If I am close please let me know, thank you. IN that way absolute zero would be information death possibly also right? I think that would be a breech of conservation laws though.