foodchain

Right, plasma, sorry about that one and thanks.

You make many good points but overall the idea of drugs covers a spectrum of substances overall. On one end you have say marijuana, on the other lets say you have meth of crack, these drugs are overall different in how they will effect a human being. With that in mind we do have legal drugs, chiefly one could simply point out alcohol which kills thousands of people yearly and destroys families, on that note though you have an untold amount of people that can use these drugs really without any serious consequence for the most part. To add to my position overall it really does at some point associates itself into the realm of being subjective, and on that note it basically means that ideology behind it all is not so much based on anything factually but the current mode of authority. IN many different countries in the U.S drugs laws are drastically different, and it does not take long in regards to looking at Amsterdam to see that many of the problems associated with drug use may in fact not totally be factual, or in some regard actually a bit mythical. IN this regard it then does become somewhat an attack on personal freedom, more so with the constantly occurring bloated statistics of people charged with crimes because of such even though the legality of such its an emplaced legacy really. So overall my position on drugs is a mixed message, I could never really support say crack being legal, but on that context I don’t really know how effective making it illegal really is overall, and I don’t know how you would really quantify such into anything meaningful in regards to objective thought. Then on that same idea you have drugs that are extremely harmful that are legal, that do cause problems in which we basically allow for freedom to exist and personal responsibility to ensue under the notion of liberty and justice and the human experience. Its a complex issue, and for the most part its ruled or regulated not from fact, but from emotion. I cant say with full understanding that such a position is wrong, but I can say overall that it falls short in many regards from making good sense. I would like to chat more on the subject but this post is long enough already for a proper response to take place on the internet.

Yes but from going from BEC which is what I understand is absolute zero you have a certain physical phenomena that occurs, what some may call a fourth state of matter I guess or another phase of matter. So how does that actually qualify as order/disorder really? I mean pretty much it stops entropy at that point if my assumptions are correct.

Should all drugs be Illegal, if not which drugs should be legal or illegal. Please explain why you think this way also. Feel free to express your position in ways I may have not covered with the question, such as you may support drugs being legal for people with medical conditions, etc...

As I currently understand it entropy is a measure of disorder, but in comparison to what exactly allows for that definition to exist. I mean if you are to say something is in disorder, that’s to mean there is then an order right, or some other state something should or could be in besides the disordered one. *Side Note. I would also like to know what role entropy plays in string theory, in context of the uncertainty principal if anyone could point me in a direction to read on such that would be great.

Yes but you need thumbs and the ability to move and graze or consume you see. Put a person in a box, something like a prison, and they cease to exist anymore. Maybe that’s why we do such, I mean build prisons and all. IN reality as I would understand it what does it say about something like geomorphology for instance. I mean something was occurring outside of human or other living things ability to influence it. As in relation to the debate question, free will, well I see what people are getting at, but you cant freely start to speak just any language you want in an instant just as you are not freely simply able to grasp the reality of the universe factually in an instant, or simply free will yourself into flight. If memory serves the more human part of us or the very frontal lobe of our brains allows for introspection of some kind, though I don’t know if that ability to control or manipulate is simply akin to just us, other living things also make decisions and have variance of personality, such as not all dogs act alike for instance, or repeat in a total repetition like a loop in some robotic fashion dong the same thing at the same time in the same absolute carbon copy way. This is where science being divergent in regards to fields hurts overall understanding me thinks. Maybe some overall filed of science for such a purpose needs to be generated, that looks at these questions in an interdisciplinary frame, I mean going from this debate board you see people that have extremes in knowledge in certain areas, but are totally lacking in others. Then giant questions like this of course suffer from such. I think such tools are really what happen to be required for serious empirical observations and truths to be devised, besides that its a subjective battle of perceptions really, much like politics or most any human institution overall. A simple question, how would free will derive from organic evolution? How would you speak on that in terms of QM, actually what would be the framwork for empirical studies into such even.

Not to play like I know what I am talking about, but simply saying its all energy, I think you could also say its all matter. I know its a pointless argument, as I have no points to make to back the claim up, but really, what’s the difference in saying its all energy, or that its all matter. Its like saying it will probably happen, well that means it will probably not happen also, but then again its a common social convention and not really the use of the word me thinks. simply if it was all energy, whatever brought it together into matter form, on that note though everything being particle or matter, would simply imply that such can evolve into different forms in an ocean of such, like space. Its purely a speculation, but I just think there is no real difference when saying its all energy or its all matter, being the two depend on one another. I don’t know of any real organized systems of pure energy though, such as fire in which I think its pattern is somewhat indicative of entropy.

Here is a good link I think for understanding such. You do have to do some clicking in it though, but when you get to images of dinosaurs, you can get some data about them, such as where they lived. http://www.prehistory.com/colorchr.htm Yes the debate about evolution seems to be slowly eroding understanding of such in some regards, so what have you. Next will be the attack on bivalves, surely its going to happen at some point, or that the debate about evolution might simply escape the horrible reality that humans are in a zoology book somewhere like other living things.

Here is a nice link on research in reference to global warming and tree rings. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/16/8350.pdf Here is another link on the issue. "Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Tree Ring Evidence for Growth Enhancement in Natural Vegetation VALMORE C. LAMARCHE JR. 1, DONALD A. GRAYBILL 1, HAROLD C. FRITTS 1, and MARTIN R. ROSE 1 1 Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson 85721 A response of plant growth to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, which has been anticipated from laboratory data, may now have been detected in the annual rings of subalpine conifers growing in the western United States. Experimental evidence shows that carbon dioxide can be an important limiting factor in the growth of plants in this high-altitude environment. The greatly increased tree growth rates observed since the mid-l9th century exceed those expected from climatic trends but are consistent in magnitude with global trends in carbon dioxide, especially in recent decades. If correctly interpreted, these findings have important implications for climate studies involving tree ring observations and for models of the global carbon dioxide budget. Submitted on March 8, 1984 Accepted on June 28, 1984" http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/225/4666/1019 Here is another link. "A 3620-Year Temperature Record from Fitzroya cupressoides Tree Rings in Southern South America Antonio Lara 1 and Ricardo Villalba 2 1 Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 80721 2 Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 A tree-ring width chronology of alerce trees (Fitzroya cupressoides) from southern Chile was used to produce an annually resolved 3622-year reconstruction of departures from mean summer temperatures (December to March) for southern South America. The longest interval with above-average temperatures was from 80 B.C. to A.D. 160. Long intervals with below-average temperatures were recorded from A.D. 300 to 470 and from A.D. 1490 to 1700. Neither this proxy temperature record nor instrumental data for southern South America for latitudes between 35° and 44°S provide evidence of a warming trend during the last decades of this century that could be related to anthropogenic causes. The data also indicate that alerce is the second longest living tree after the bristlecone pine (Pinus Iongaeva)." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/260/5111/1104 To understand global warming from any aspect of the biosphere or from the point of organismal life would have to be undertook overall in relation to species to species to a certain extent. Though in an ecological/evolutionary sense that study alone probably could have great strides of work completed rapidly from existing data and of course aid such understanding by continued research. This is not to say that tree rings cant be used in studies on global warming, its just that not every species of tree is the same basically down to every detail for instance. Here is another link about tree rings, and another one of the reasons such can be trusted for a source of data overall. "Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this. One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase. Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms. CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases. Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes. Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges -- whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry -- show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.*** In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ Here is a good link though as to why the biosphere in general would be a postive tool in which to study global climate change, or global warming. "A partly bleached coral reef is blindingly white next to healthy coral. Rising ocean temperatures, one of the many effects of global warming, are threatening coral reefs around the world. In response to the warming temperatures, a process known as bleaching occurs. Although bleaching doesn’t kill coral reefs, they become more vulnerable to diseases. Warming oceans may also be decreasing the level of phytoplankton, a natural absorber of carbon dioxide. Read fast facts about global warming." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/photo4.html

"Atmosphere Main article: Atmosphere of Venus Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C. This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmosphere "The atmosphere of Venus is very hot and thick. You would not survive a visit to the surface of the planet - you couldn't breathe the air, you would be crushed on by the enormous weight of the atmosphere, and you would burn up in surface temperatures high enough to melt lead. The atmosphere of Venus is made up mainly of carbon dioxide, and thick clouds of sulfuric acid completely cover the planet. The atmosphere traps the small amount of energy from the sun that does reach the surface along with the heat the planet itself releases. This greenhouse effect has made the surface and lower atmosphere of Venus one of the hottest places in the solar system! If you were on the surface of the planet, the air above you would be about 90 times heavier than the Earth's atmosphere. This is like what a submarine experiences at 3000 ft below the surface of the Earth's ocean. The atmosphere is composed mainly of carbon dioxide (96%), 3.5% nitrogen, and less than 1% is made up of carbon monoxide, argon, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor. Why should Venus and not the Earth have a hot and thick atmosphere? Some scientists call it the Goldilocks phenomenon. Measurements made by probes which travelled through the atmosphere have shown that the atmospheric temperature remains nearly constant through the long dark night. Thus there are neither significant seasons, nor daily temperature changes in the atmosphere." http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/venus/atmosphere.html

My understanding of the computer only goes so far:D When I was interested in computers in a more heavy handed tone Microsoft of instance or its OS really had nothing to support threading, I never really worked with Linux or the other vast sea of operating systems in all reality. You can do precedence work with threads though in the language, I remember that much. Basically my idea is no large degree departure from current oop methods, its really not. As I put in the above post its really just how such is structured. I think the benefits again would simply be maintenance, scalability, and of course visibility of program function while its being developed. Okay, this is hard to explain at this point but here is my best shot. Every language has its own set of intrinsic commands right, well that would be what the node is. The commands intrinsic to it would be based on rules you would find in say matrix algebra. So you have all of your threads, all of your data objects right, okay. Then when you go to run the program itself the commands are giving the commands native to the node structure, such as this part from the link I used above. “M-N = M + (-1)N “ Now each letter or number in my instance would be a thread being called to action, to perform a function per say. so say you have a gui for someone to do online banking for instance, something like that example above could compromise a large portion of that, say dealing with a savings account. You could just put that in a dowhile loop while that thread in general is active, the saving part. So arguments basically would be writing in that format overall. Nothing but an argument of threads which have scope to objects of data. Now commands like that could be in individuals threads, and the node commands would be open or more would exist then what is present in the example above and of course formatted for a bit more functionality, but in reality if you did it right, you could write a bunch of threads, and data objects for anything, then if you understood exactly what everything was doing, and entire program could be generated from just one line of code then, by embedding. So see, the move is not away from oop as much as simply its more into thread control. This is where I think the scalability, maintenance, and diagnostic aspects of software could get a plus, simply because the commands themselves would reveal exactly where something went wrong, but being its based in a matrix format the actions that lead to the error itself, or where a certain part of code that is doing something at a certain point could become very visible. The hump as I see it is pretty soon it would become a complex issue of embedded threads within threads, within threads, pretty soon based on commands that have to be executed in the context of a matrices. Besides that the main body of a program, or the part that get executed would basically be a compilation of data from the object libraries and the thread libraries put together via the command structure of the node, so it basically in a very general sense would be a large pool of thread commands in that structure repeating basically. There is more to say on it, but I will wait for a reply at this point if you are interested in more, and please remember its just an idea really, something to play with.

I have not put enough into the idea to develop a visual graph to represent it really, not in anything that would be more definitive then words really. Basically it is the same pretty much as I would understand more object orientated languages. The only different as I could think is that each thread/task would basically be an individual program. Objects of data would also be something separate, then you could develop the control node, say the idea I got from reading on matrix algebra to manage or execute the threads/tasks functions in relation to the data objects or constructs. So Body 1 would be just data objects, body 2 would be threads or tasks, basically individual programs. Then the two would come together with the node abstracted from matrix algebra. When scaling or performing maintenance on the software only parts then would most likely need to be changed, such as some data objects, or a thread or two. The management node could have many variables for it also, one of prime interest is simply following what everything is doing during its spawn of operation, which would be a really nice diagnostic tool I think. So overall its not really a departure in my opinion from current oop methods, as its a departure from how such is developed and maintained. I think such would also be prime for working the areas of compatibility with native hardware or software really. My main point I think is such a structure giving to an oop driving language would really allow for the software to evolve much more easily to needs, from a business application to incorporation the latest content for management of image data, basically a oop language that allows for mass compartmentalization, specialization and of course threading or tasking required program behavior. The management node would basically work on tiers of precedence allowing also for the threads to hold relation to each other in a structure that can control scope, visibility and manipulation of data by the threads. It would be horrific to not, simply because having multiple threads all manipulation data at the same time really cannot be a good, or lasting practice. So its just a play on what’s already existing really as pointed out put into more of a concrete structure such as how the language itself is designed to be programmed. Such as look at this page on matrix algebra. http://www.sosmath.com/matrix/matrix0/matrix0.html Now instead of simply numerical functions with it, you could have more digital ones, such as if object A is changed the node could activate more threads and bring them into queue for operation with that certain data object, which could be flagged easily in every thread and of course in every object, basically leading to having threads running that pertain only to the data being used at the time, and as the equations per say of thread to object data were being executed of course in an open to being programmed status, other thread behavior would not interfere and data could be keep safer from corruption. So you would end up with the node basically executing lines of function, like this “M-N = M + (-1)N “ found in the link, but replace such in the equation with threads and data objects, and the symbolic logic with something more akin to computer commands, such as if x has changed run y, and z thread.

The main brunt of attack on scientific data on global warming was a product of a think-tank based around protecting the American republican party from popular rejection due to lack of concern on the issue. The main person behind that as of the year 2007 has since apologized in deep guilt for desiring to attack global warming, he states at the time it was more credible to do such in regards to the science surrounding global warming, but such science has grown to a position that you can no longer doubt simply by suggesting doubt into the science. The political action of global warming is rooted in this, and of course large scale multinational companies based on fossil fuel happen to be funneling millions of dollars into skeptical organizations which in themselves of course simply for some reason cannot come up with a counteractive IPCC report:D The IPCC working group 1 is a composition of scientists that deal with global warming, the IPCC itself does not conduct any research period but is a proxy via which professionals that do work in such a field can have data collected for use by political bodies and other social bodies. You can say what you want about the data, that’s fine, its just data, and as you say its open to interpretation right, but again its just data as collected, and no its not based on simply computer models, in reality there are numerous computer models for global warming, which to agree with you don’t agree, save that the planet will continue to warm. Personally most of my knowledge of global warming is rather small to be honest, I got interested in it basically from the angle of wanting to make sure organisms on the extinction list, which is numerous and typically man made, are protected, thus the format of my education goals anymore. Global warming science is just that, its a work in progress, but where are you going with the data, as you just suggested the IPCC report I guess is just a computer simulation like Microsoft flight, or chess possibly. Here is an article with link. "Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Sorry, I know it was a bit rough, its hard to convey an idea on a board without writing to much as to scare people away simply from volume. Its just an idea for a programming language is all, something I was tinkering with around six years ago really. I was sitting in a hallway at college reading a book on matrix algebra and I was wondering how much of a tool such could be if used as a management structure for threading or tasking really. A language that would in itself be composed of basically bodies of objects or data, threads/tasks, whichever word you id better with, and then the management chunk to run it all together.

All I did was post data.

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2). {2.3. 6.5, 2.9} • The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years. {2.3, 6.4} • Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5} • Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from several other sources. Tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W m-2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in halocarbons8 is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m-2. Changes in surface albedo, due to land-cover changes and deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow, exert respective forcings of -0.2 [-0.4 to 0.0] and +0.1 [0.0 to +0.2] W m-2. Additional terms smaller than ±0.1 W m-2 are shown in Figure SPM-2. {2.3, 2.5, 7.2} • Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7} • It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. {2.9, 7.5, 9.4} • The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. {4.8, 5.2, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7} Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized. {10.4, 10.5, 10.7} • Climate carbon cycle coupling is expected to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the climate system warms, but the magnitude of this feedback is uncertain. This increases the uncertainty in the trajectory of carbon dioxide emissions required to achieve a particular stabilisation level of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Based on current understanding of climate carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest that to stabilise at 450 ppm carbon dioxide, could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st century be reduced from an average of approximately 670 [630 to 710] GtC (2460 [2310 to 2600] GtCO2) to approximately 490 [375 to 600] GtC (1800 [1370 to 2200] GtCO2). Similarly, to stabilise at 1000 ppm this feedback could require that cumulative emissions be reduced from a model average of approximately 1415 [1340 to 1490] GtC (5190 [4910 to 5460] GtCO2) to approximately 1100 [980 to 1250] GtC (4030 [3590 to 4580] GtCO2). {7.3, 10.4} • If radiative forcing were to be stabilized in 2100 at B1 or A1B levels11 a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5°C would still be expected, mostly by 2200. {10.7} • If radiative forcing were to be stabilized in 2100 at A1B levels11, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980–1999). Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries, due to the time required to transport heat into the deep ocean. {10.7} • Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 10.7} • Dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models but suggested by recent observations could increase the vulnerability of the ice sheets to warming, increasing future sea level rise. Understanding of these processes is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude. {4.6, 10.7} • Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance. {10.7} • Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3} Data taken from the latest IPCC reports. You can find the who and why on such as to why such is being reported. This is only a snippet of it of course.

I think people are getting confused about what I am trying to talk about, here is a snip from an article about it I think with a link to that article. "Cells have a lot of mechanisms for incorporating fatty acids into storage forms, for metabolizing them or for using them in cellular membranes," Schaffer says. "But saturated fats like palmitate are poorly stored in the tiny fat droplets normally found in most cells and therefore are more likely to enter into pathways that lead to cell death such as the one in which EF1A-1 is involved." http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/6398.html

Sort of, but not really. See even with the address function you have so much and so much which I would suggest is really existing because of how this software is put together. Basically an organic command that allows this to exist for anything, an imagine, a word, basically anything you want if you wanted to, and you could apply basic scope to it, like public, or private with more stipulations. I mean you can do it, but the command itself does not simply exist to my knowing, such as organic mouse commands say for java, before organic mouse commands existed you could of course still work with the mouse, just such was not raped up in neat self contained commands basically. Traversing the net period is done by address functions, and I just don’t understand why this system itself cant have a lot more work or commands available for it, such as even when doing search functions with Google, say I look up Plato, I can get a half millions hits that have the word Plato mentioned one time halfway through a page.

As a function for controlling threading or tasking, do you think such would work? Basically you would derive threads, or tasks, which could encapsulate all the information you want, such as a thread or task to conduct a certain type of accounting. Then separate to this you could develop say a body of data, that contains variables, such as for the accounting thread a variable that encapsulates how much tax money for a certain object in the world. I know I am skipping a lot but I am just trying to get it up and running visually. Then you could have another function, which sort of acts like matrix algebra in which threads could be called into, and that could be a sort of management function, which then could also allow basically a middleman to exist between threads and the data they operate on in the form of a stack, such as if one thread is calling on an object currently in use by a thread already in the matrix. It would be a bit of a data stack, but such could be a neat tool in itself to run diagnostics on the software’s function or performance, and even be another angle to run security. So basically the matrix part would run threads on call, have a stack for total thread running/function, this could allow for many threads to be running at once, and could allow for more safety of whatever data they are running on. I also think such would be a more laid out method to program. Say a command, user enter some data, based on the data you could then have a thread call command, such as say thread user_input(if x=1 do.call(account1(x))), meanwhile the threads running could be on an a more organized basis, such as the gui display even. The threads themselves could have entry and exit attributes for when called, or when to go dormant and ways to communicate with other threads, but the means to control them would be akin to running them in a matrix of sorts based on matrix algebra concepts.

Right, I just remember a little picture in one of my books that showed a fat deposit inside a cell, I don’t know what cell it was. Plus after some reading on the subject which did not help me as to understand exactly if the cell is getting fat, or as you said simply the chemical fat:confused: can get inside the cell and even lead to death of the cell, which in various places can cause health problems such as in the liver for instance, but such was sort of dependent on the type of fat. Some part of getting in shape always lead me to believe that even on a cellular level your body gets into better shape which improves metabolism or something, so basically I am trying to reference that with the ability for a cell to suffer from individual fat, which leads to possibly why entire organs such as can break down, akin to what happens during and after a heart attack.

Can an individual human cell get fat, or have fat in it?

So is saying science is divided on global warming, and saying just that, and only that.

You can study such in the difference between vascular and non vascular plants also, water is polar, which has an impact on its interactions with the cell wall if memory serves, or water is polar in regards to the cell walls, which might be somewhat a link to your experiments.

Not for entire pages, just parts of them actually, or scope that could be defined by functions, of course with related variables and library classed or whatever, term dependent on language. I mean even down to a single word, such as just this post, or part of it if I wanted.

I think that either Java, or JSP, or whatever version of html we are on, or some large scale internet language or infrastructure should allow commands to exist that can give and individual website the ability to have multiple addresses, or sub addresses if I may. What I mean is this, say you have a paragraph, one of a hundred in a certain page, or any such example, it would be nice if that particular piece had its own address. Now the address system could be made even better, such as having password functions, compression functions, etc... It could even be used along with say meta content to refine searches online, I really think it could be of use. I am no longer really playing with computers, but for anyone that does, do you think its a good idea, and if so can you help make it a reality as I think it would be cool to say the least.