someone give him a vaporizer!

My former roommate had a degree from Oaksterdam University. (And yes, he had access to some great -- medical grade & vaporized -- weed of many 'flavors', kinds, and varieties.)

I still laugh, to this day, when I think about sampling some of his "product," and looking at his degree (which I insisted he frame and mount on our living room wall) and noticing that it read, verbatim, the following:

"This degree certifies that [Name Witheld] has satisfied all of the requirements for staring a business..."

You read that correctly.. staring a business. I thought it was the funniest thing. An unfortunate typo on his degree from Oaksterdam. Still makes me laugh!

I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what your gas waste product, the fact that it is a gas makes it a problem in knowing exactly the effects you can/will have. Even if all vapor waste products were chanced from carbon to water, it might still have a large effect on weather and climate in large enough quantity. This is why I have come to regard nuclear byproducts as the greatest byproduct ever produced by energy production, because it is mostly a solid/liquid. You can deal with a solid directly, and with a little engineering and know how you can eliminate or transmute it. You can compare that with our own human waste products; if you need to secrete you liquid or solid waste, we have ways of capturing and processing them. However, if you need to fart, you have no choice but to soil the very air you need to breath shortly. Vapor waste, even if non-toxic, is nearly impossible to control with in our current understandings of the physical sciences. If you must make waste, make sure it is solid or liquid, we can deal with that shit...

/rant

>> ^rychan:

>> ^juliovega914:
I am guessing that the project is using a hybrid system, a powder propellant and an accelerating coil. Gets the acceleration of both systems.

Really? That seems unlikely to me.
Although I was wondering what the explosion was, but I figured it had some exotic explanation related to the vaporized metal.


The friction of the payload ignites the air as it fires.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/943-railgun-weapons.html

>> ^juliovega914:

I am guessing that the project is using a hybrid system, a powder propellant and an accelerating coil. Gets the acceleration of both systems.


Really? That seems unlikely to me.

Although I was wondering what the explosion was, but I figured it had some exotic explanation related to the vaporized metal.

I was almost in an accident like this once. My girlfriend and I were driving through California near Modesto on a two-lane, 50 mph back-road in the dark. Our right front tire went over the line into what looked like more pavement but was actually soft, dry, desert dirt. We just barely kissed the line but it was enough to send us off the road towards a tree, my girlfriend over-corrected and brought us back on the road and into the oncoming lane. We passed through the space between two cars, went off the other side of the road, over-corrected again (because we were really just fishtailing at that point), drove back through oncoming traffic, sideways, and stopped in our original lane facing the wrong way.

I always think of that when I see car accident videos. That and the fact that we were driving an early Hyundai Accent, the kind that would've vaporized had we actually hit anything. For a few seconds there, floating in the space between two cars, my whole existence was entirely dependent on luck, or fate if you wish. It felt very weird, and a damn-sight unfair.

It's really easy to say that this guy was driving irresponsibly, or to say that one needs to respect semis, but it looks like he was going with the flow of traffic, maybe just a little faster. Those moments like this happen before you even know what's going on. Your tire brushing that little pile of melting snow can start a series of events that you have no control over. And driving slower than the rest of traffic can be just as dangerous, especially in the snow.

But I'm not trying to be preachy. The thing that really amazes me is that when people see these videos, we always tend to think of ourselves as being in the place of the driver who fucked-up. We could just as easily, however, be the other guy. Happens every day, all over the world. You're driving safely in your own lane, minding your own business, and all-of-a-sudden you're pink pate' getting spread nicely over a crispy metal cracker. Nothing you could've done. Driving is dangerous.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Love em, *promote!


you rock sistah!

>> ^residue:

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?
Here are some data:
Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043
_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)
The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)
In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.
You might, however, find this interesting:
http://onlin
e.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.


Well, you and I seem largely agreed. I commented multiple times that the warming is not in question, but rather why and more importantly what it means to us.

The challenge with accurately modelling the contribution of H2O has nothing to do with our own emissions of H2O. For all reasonable purposes we can, again as you seem to agree, ignore the meager contribution humans make to it. H2O is as you say largely short lived in the atmosphere, but it still makes up the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse effect, despite residing in the atmosphere for a fraction of the time of gases like CO2. Obviously that means that H2O replenishes itself into the atmosphere as rapidly as it dissipates. We know that this rate is driven by temperature. What we don't understand well is how that should play out in our models, or more importantly how it plays out in reality. Just how much confidence can we place on future projections of CO2 changes when we aren't even sure which sign to attribute the feedback effect of water vapor?

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?

Here are some data:

Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)

The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.

You might, however, find this interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.
Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.
The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.
I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.

That's probably the first rebuttal to climate change I've ever read that doesn't spout nonsense and lies. Kudos to you.
Out of interest, you say you're "not entirely a layman". May I ask if that means you have studied climatology or simply that you read the papers?
As for water vapour, it's not really a "forcing agent", it's reactive. It's better explained here.


My background is computer science but that requires a strong math background as well. When doing any manner of computer simulation of a complex and unknown system, the purely theoretical models are rarely sane. The reason being you can't model the bare physics of a complex system, so you have to essentially estimate(fake) the macro effects and properties. You get good computer models by comparing the results to real data and iterating back and forth until your model starts doing a better job of reflecting reality. The big red flag for me with climate models is the really limited real world data available to compare models to. I don't models aren't worthwhile, scientists are building them because they are useful. The trouble is what they are useful for. By definition, the models have to be treated as less reliable than the raw data we calibrate them against and run our sanity checks against. Neither does it matter how many different models we run, all that gets is closer to the same reliability as the real world measures that we have.

That ties into the article I linked, where the climate guys trying to rebuild temperature data to calibrate computer models from where themselves not strong enough in statistics to notice very significant flaws in the methods they were using. Flaws that systematically produced the results they initially deemed significant. Without a strong grounding there, I have to assess we are still left with a long road to go before really saying we understand this.

As for water vapor being reactive, I would very much disagree. Any climate scientist trying to tell you that is trying to simplify things for you to the point they are no longer being accurate. Ice caps melting, oceans rising, and cloud cover doubling is going to drive climate. It is going to force climate more strongly than anything else. The big unknown is just what parameters water vapor works under, it's simply not well understood yet. Computer models don't even know what sign to assign it as a forcing agent for pitysake. Most likely because it can act as both positive and negative based on environmental factors which are dependent on temperature among other things. When it comes to what kind of forcing H2O does the honest answer is that it's role is so complicated we just simply do not know. What we DO know is that currently, it contributes to 60-90% of the overall greenhouse effect. That tells me it's role in forcing is a much more worthy area of focus and study than CO2 and it's a crying shame so many more dollars are spent on CO2 than H2O when what we really need is to understand the whole system in order know what is really going on.

>> ^bcglorf:


I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.
Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.
The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.
I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.


That's probably the first rebuttal to climate change I've ever read that doesn't spout nonsense and lies. Kudos to you.

Out of interest, you say you're "not entirely a layman". May I ask if that means you have studied climatology or simply that you read the papers?

As for water vapour, it's not really a "forcing agent", it's reactive. It's better explained here.

>> ^NetRunner:

@therealblankman directly measured temperature data has been around since the 1880's. Nasa's just compiled that data into a graphical video for mass consumption.
@visionep, @bcglorf here's a link to the scientific paper associated with the video: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImba
lancePaper.pdf
But it's not as if the questions you raise haven't been answered a million times over, and it's not as if coal and oil companies haven't spent billions trying to discredit the findings for almost two decades, without success.
Maybe, just maybe, you guys should give the benefit of the doubt to the people who've dedicated their lives to studying this stuff, and not assume that they've made some basic error that any layman can see?


I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.

Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.

The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.

I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.

Yes, thats what i got from this video as well. I think everyone else missed the point.

>> ^BoneRemake:

I think a big deal is made out of her dancing in the falling snow. I disagree with this over bearing emphasis of cold just because of falling ice crystals. yes it is cold enough for snow to fall but it is not cold enough for a person to NOT be dancing in their underwear. You can not even see her breath in the air, when it is cold enough to mention it is cold, you can see a steamy rising vapor of water from the nostrils and oral cavity.

I think a big deal is made out of her dancing in the falling snow. I disagree with this over bearing emphasis of cold just because of falling ice crystals. yes it is cold enough for snow to fall but it is not cold enough for a person to NOT be dancing in their underwear. You can not even see her breath in the air, when it is cold enough to mention it is cold, you can see a steamy rising vapor of water from the nostrils and oral cavity.

Did you even read what I said? I said people should use their wealth to do the Lords work and help the poor. God gives people material blessings to do those things, but many are enslaved to their love of money and don't do them. I know exactly what the word says about money, and my statement matches it precisely. I am not a republican nor am I a gung-ho capitalist. The early church was very socialist, in that the members all sold what they had and shared the proceeds with eachother as they needed. I support that, but I also recognize that in a fallen world, without the hand of God directly involved, socialism can very easily become totalitarian.

>> ^Asmo:
>> ^shinyblurry:
That isn't an indictment against money, it is an indictment against greed. God doesn't care if you have money, but He does care what you use it for. He made Solomon the richest person on the planet. I think those who are rich should be using their money for the Lords work and giving heartily to the poor, so I do not support the aquisition of wealth for wealths sake. I think that is sinful. However, that is their choice, and it is not up to me, but it is between them and God.

Typical christian, thinks he knows what his god wants but ignores what he says... Just think about how much good works those stashed millions could be doing for the poor. Dare I say it, the 'God' conservatives put so much stock in is a gasp socialist...
"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45
"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 17:5
"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16
"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21
"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27
"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
-1 Timothy 6:9-10
"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
-1 Timothy 6:17-19
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-Ezekiel 16:49
"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."
-Proverbs 22:2
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
-Proverbs 14:31
"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."
-Proverbs 22:9
"Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse."
-Proverbs 28:6
"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 28:20
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7
"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death."
-Proverbs 11:4
"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the LORD will take up their case and will plunder those who plunder them."
-Proverbs 22:22-23
"Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint. Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle."
-Proverbs 23:4-5
"Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless."
-Ecclesiastes 5:10
"A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold."
-Proverbs 22:1
"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."
-Deuteronomy 15:11
"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have."
-Hebrews 13:5
"You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, but the Lord is their refuge."
-Psalm 14:6
"He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done."
-Proverbs 19:17
"A rich man may be wise in his own eyes, but a poor man who has discernment sees through him."
-Proverbs 28:11
"A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare."
-Proverbs 21:6
"The wealth of the rich is their fortified city; they imagine it an unscalable wall."
-Proverbs 18:11