Mr Skeptic

The models generally make the premise that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase. Without that premise, the models say nothing. This is a premise that SkepticLance has challenged, and I do not see any way that those premises can be proven. Sure, we will (probably) be using more energy, and if we continue to burn coal without taking preventive action, the amount of CO2 will (probably) increase. Regardless, there are countless things that could happen within a hundred years. Look back one hundred years and tell me who predicted the stuff we have now? No one? How then do you expect that we can predict what will happen in the next hundred years, if we couldn't predict that before? The evidence here is clearly that we can't predict the future that far ahead. iNow, Have you proven that we won't change to using nuclear or renewable power? Have you proven that we won't invent a successful fusion power plant within 100 years? Have you proven that the warming won't cause an increase in plant and algae growth? Have you proven that we won't start taking some preventative measures, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron, or using terra preta to put carbon into the soil? This is a very limited list, and I can expand further on the difficulties of predicting the future if you wish. Well, you too then. I think you are being a bit more demanding of SkepticLance than you are of yourself.

[bold italics added by me] Is that an admission that you are a troll, living under a bridge?

Could this whole entropy thing be moved to its own thread? I don't want to dedicate this tread to convincing Fred56 that entropy means what scientists say it means rather than whatever he wants it to mean.

Both were in great part to make people feel good. The resolution was cheap, and makes several Christians feel good; the moon landing made most Americans feel good. Certainly there was much scientific value to all of the Apollo program that was required to land on the moon, but much of the value of actually landing on the moon was national pride (we beat the Russians!). The projects for putting a man on the moon again (in about 2020), and wanting to send a man to Mars, as opposed to sending just rovers, is for pretty much this reason also. I didn't mean to sound as though good feelings were the only value to space exploration. In fact, I think we should be doing much more with space travel than we are doing now, but that's for a different thread. Also, improved morale does have value and can be worth spending money on.

My observations: apart from multiple other problems, we would see it expanding from our satellites. A difference between an expanding earth theory and plate tectonics, is that plate tectonics predicts plates crashing together and forming stuff like mountains, whereas expanding earth would tend to flatten things.

Makes em feel better. Kind of like landing a man on the moon.

Multiply the height of the rainwater at the tube by (area of tube / area of collector). Edit: I didn't realize the thing was a V shape. That is rather unusual for a rain collector. I'll hide the answer in case you actually meant this as a puzzle. [hide] Divide the volume of water by the area of the collector. The volume will be V = 1/2 h * w * L. Those are height, width, and length of the rainwater. L will be either 3'' or 8'' depending on how you arrange the plates. The ratio h/w will be equal to H/W, the ratio of height to width of the collector, and will be constant. The collector area will be A = W * L. Then you want V/A = 1/2 h * w / W = h^2 / 2H, which will be (volume of rainwater)/(area it fell) = (depth of rainwater). As you said, it will be square-power relationship, and it will involve the total height or width of the collector -- a larger collector will collect more rain. [/hide]

Having read further on this subject, I think it is a good idea and some large scale tests should be done. There were already several "natural" tests, eg windstorms and volcanic sources of iron. Since these blooms seem to occur naturally, and last a limited amount of time (~3 months), I think it would be a good idea. As to the complaint that much of the algae will be eaten instead of sinking, well good for us. It's about time we start doing some positive things. Or, we could eat whatever eats the algae.

I seem to recall reading about something similar. It involved a similar type of stimulation, but to the brain instead of the ear. It allowed researchers to move people, and when questioned, the people made all sorts of excuses as to why they moved.

Fred56, I don't think the reason you get "flammed" has anything to do with any particular word you use.

Wow! Did you write that yourself? Maybe we should get it passed.

Shall we celebrate in the Saturnalia spirit?

Funny how the Atheist Ethicist accuses Christians of being "enthusiastic supporters of a morality of lies and sophistry" while themselves making use of lies and sophistry in the very same statement! The only conclusion that can be drawn from the observations that politicians engage in lies and sophistry is that politicians are liars and sophists. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the politicians being supported by the people because of their use of lies and sophistry, is that either people approve of, or are unable to see through, the lies and sophistry. That politicians supporting certain ideas are supported by people with similar ideas is a no-brainer. And condemning lies and sophistry, engaging in lies and sophistry, and then accusing their strawman of Christians of being hypocrites while being themselves hypocrites has got to earn them a prize of some sort.

Everything except this bit seems reasonable, if completely worthless. This point would be abused plenty. And people who aren't Christians would feel left out. Fortunately, it is just a resolution.

I didn't say it was a good method, just what tends to happen. Whether it is a good method may depend on the personality of the individual. Personally, I like learning concepts that underlie a bunch of more specific facts, rather than the specific facts. But that would be learning "less things" and may look bad to some people. Well, it's been asked here a few times.

I think that everyone should learn some advanced math. Even if just a little bit of it. For example, arithmatic, (high school) algebra, basic trigonometry, some statistics, and basic calculus. For trig, they should learn to use right triangles a^2 + b^2 = c^2, sin = opposite divided by hypotenuse, cos = adjacent divided by hypotenuse, and tan = opposite divided by adjacent. They should also learn the relation of sin and cos to a circle. From this little bit, most of the important concepts can be derived, and it shouldn't take even a week to teach. For calculus, they should learn about limits, converging/diverging, that the derivative is the opposite of an integral, that an integral is the area under a curve and the derivative the slope of the curve. And a bit on how to use these maths, but not necessarily how to actually do integrals and derivatives (that would take much longer). For how to use the derivative, for example, they could teach about finding maxima and minima. For statistics, they should learn enough to know why gambling always favors the casino in their games of chance (ie, how to calculate the probabilities of things). The problem with not teaching math is that math is the language of most anything that isn't vague. If they don't learn math, then many many doors are closed to them, and they might not go through the trouble of learning math to do what they wanted but take the easy way out and major in [subject removed to avoid offending English Literature majors] instead.

The legal definition has been posted at least twice. I explained why I think waterboarding is torture according to that definition in post 16 Where I said about lawful sanctions, I shouldn't have written "not convicted" in this case anyhow, since the example you gave was of a captured al Qaeda member and he probably was convicted. I have heard of torture being applied to non-convicted people in Guantenamo which is why I put that. However, I think what it actually meant by "lawful sanctions" was the punishment for a crime, so that part I said wrong anyhow.

Hi, I'm a horrible procrastinator. My habit is really getting me into trouble. I've been trying to stop procrastinating for a while now without success. My favorite activities to do when procrastinating on something far more important, were playing computer games, reading Slashdot, and watching TV. At the start of this semester, I pledged to give up computer games (which I have been playing since I can remember), reading Slashdot, and watching TV for the rest of the semester. I did manage to give these up, but found another way to procrastinate, reading SFN instead. Though I am happy I have exchanged brain rot for SFN, my idea that I would stop procrastinating if I have up my most time-consuming past times seems to be completely wrong. I just found a different way to procrastinate, and no doubt if I gave up SFN or computers or any particular way to procrastinate, I would still find a new way to procrastinate. Also, many of my relatives procrastinate: grandparents on my mother's side, mother, father, aunt, younger siblings. My older brother, uncle, and grandparents on my father's side might procrastinate a lot or not, but I don't know for sure. It seems to run in the family. Nike's motto "Just do it!" just doesn't seem to work. If I leave a task for later, it is usually left till never or at best the deadline. Any ideas of how I can help myself?

An incurable shopaholic, then. If she doesn't not admit she has a problem, it is unlikely that anything can be done with her. Her husband should be in charge of that anyhow. I'm worried she may have a bad influence on her kids, though. The only solution for her is a cold dose of reality. If her husband could limit the amount of money she gets each month and prevent her from borrowing, that may be a solution. As for your mom. You'd think that she would have learned something after all those years. In the end, it will be her choice -- even if she becomes easy to manipulate in her later years. Unless you can make her see that your sister is hopeless, she will likely try to help. There are some people who plan people's retirement. If they are put in charge of your money, they will let you have only so much at a time, which would prevent her from giving it all away to your sister. Usually, they help people with bad planning/impulse control, but perhaps that would be a solution for your mother, though it will cost something. ---- Another thought has occurred to me. I seem to obsesively do various things (currently web browsing) as a way to procrastinate. My grandma, also a strong procrastinator, spends much of her time shopping and has bad impulse control. She also has financial troubles, and I don't know if there is anything I can do to help her. Procrastination also causes financial problems, and if the favorite activity to procrastinate with involves spending money (eg shopping), that will only make things worse. From my current reading, disruptive procrastination behavior can be a symptom of some underlying psychological problems. As for your mom, don't be surprised if she is willing to do self-sacrifice to help her daughter. That is exactly the kind of behavior that the theroy of evolution would indicate. The best thing to do would be talk to your mom about the best way to help your sister, and the uselessnes of simply giving her money.

I'd imagine you could change the CO2 to CO ratio of the equation by adjusting the quantity of carbon. Or are there rules for the CO2 to CO ratio?

Though matter does not have traditional volume, all matter is in the form of wave-particles, which have a probability density over a volume. Their distribution is based on the momentum and mass of a particle, such that particles with more momentum have a shorter wavelenth (so are more localized), and more massive particles are also more localized. Particles are considered point particles (with zero size or volume) when measured, but are smeared out in a probability distribution. So the nucleus of an atom is a fuzzy blob in the center, and the electrons are a fuzzy cloud around the nucleus. The whole thing is a fuzzy probability distribution. The whole thing about basketballs and golf balls may give you a sense of scale, but it is not accurate. For macroscopic objects, the atoms themselves don't touch, but are repelled by Van der Waal forces. You see things with photons, as Sisyphus said. The photons don't generally "hit" the electrons, rather they move them from one orbital to a higher one. If light at that frequency cannot move the electron to a higher orbital, it will pass right through.

Platinum is just about unkillable, thought it is expensive.

Yes, I meant aerobic life has the enzymes to break down H2O2. Anaerobic life is SOL even in just oxygen. Thanks for the correction. From http://www.ehow.com/tips_3071.html From http://www.otan.dni.us/webfarm/emailproject/white.htm http://www.snopes.com/medical/homecure/peroxide.asp

You must have gone to a good high school

Hydrogen peroxide is highly toxic to all life. Anaerobic life forms (like us) have enzymes to break it down. H2O2 is a type of bleach (though after it is used up it is just water). I think it will not directly harm your teeth, but it might remove the protection of fluoride.