I pay people to grow, slaughter, transport, inspect, prepare and serve me food then wash and clean up after me.

If I added up all the time I've spent cooking and preparing food throughout my life, it would add up to less than 24 hours. That includes shopping.

The biggest thing that robs my time on earth now is sitting at red lights.

Maybe that thing inside his mother wasn't really him until it drew breath?
I was wondering, did he spend all of that time on earth, or just in a synchronous orbit?

Today Trump announced an executive order (unconstitutionally) rewriting the constitution so that babies born in America will no longer be citizens.
One more ignorant attempt to dehumanize any non American....this one totally unconstitutional according to all constitutional law scholars besides Trump and Giuliani, but he doesn't know that, he's never read it and wouldn't care if he did, he's anti constitution.
So much for his oath to support and defend the constitution, he'll wipe his ass with it if it will rile up his base of racists and secessionists. Let's hope this blatant unAmerican and unconstitutional move is enough for impeachment.

At this point, supporting Trump makes you an anti American terrorist just as certainly as supporting Bin Laden, ISIS, or the Taliban. They are all extremist terrorist organizations. Trump's entire platform is and has always been fear and terror and now his followers are trying what he told them to do, take out the liberals before they come take your guns.

Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up, lock him up.....and waterboard him in Guantanamo for the remainder of his short time in earth.....along with his immediate family and entire administration.

You're probably correct, they should expect exactly that mass attack. It would still be a great day if it happened, especially by an anonymous soldier of God that never is caught and hunts the survivors. I doubt too much effort would go into investigating it. ;-)

Until that day, I can only hope they are identified and given proper Christian treatment, meaning others treat them as they treat others, so their remaining time on earth is spent hiding with the family unable to spend any of that money without being exposed to rabid hatred screamed into their bleeding ears incessantly.

But that's the thing... I can say I've done as much; hell, I've done much more to help more people and I continue to do it everyday. But what I don't do is turn it into marketing in order to sell myself or a product.

Instead, I take that bit of egotism that altruism does indeed feed and feel a little better about myself. I remain humbled by all the problems I couldn't fix and the people who inspire me, and I keep doing my work without self-aggrandizement or the need to draw attention to myself.

It is important that Connor had a good day and felt great. It is important that his father got to give his son something uplifting and wonderful in his short time on Earth. It is NOT important that the WWE tell us all about it so that we will think better of them and buy their product.

So... does this mean the Afgan's get really really good real-time Google Earth res now?

It's not even that I am 'doubting' the proxy measures. I am directly observing that the proxy measures DO NOT register the last 100 years as particularly unusual or abnormal. In fact, the more accurate and improved the proxy reconstructions have become, the more normal the last 100 years appears in those reconstructions.

The proxy reconstructions are as much 0.6 degrees cooler than instrumental records at the exact same point in time. I am objecting to a laymen like in the video coming along and saying the instrumental record's warmth is unprecedented over the last 2k years. Sure the proxy records don't show temperatures as high as the instrumental record in the last 2k years. The proxy records don't even show temperatures as high as the instrumental record in the last 10. The proxy records fail to recreate the temperatures observed in the instrumental record.

Is that making sense or clear what I am talking to?


In reply to this comment by Peroxide:
hmmm, I was aware that we only have thermometric readings of temperature for the last 100-150+ years. So basically you are doubting the ability of tree rings, pollen identification in sediments, and other methods of temperature reconstruction.

If I may reiterate my point, which I made rudely in the video post, I would say that you might be interested to know that if you go back further than 2k years, as in, more than 10k, there are temperature changes that were even greater than 1 degree, however, homo-sapiens was not around to endure them. Irregardless of previous temperature deviation, science tells us that our "freeing-up" of carbon dioxide, and creation of methane, are the culprits of the current temperature increase.

How does our ability to measure the last 2k years change that? or change the fact that we are heading for a 6 degree increase (which would not be uniform, for instance the poles have already warmed more than by 0.8 degrees, while the tropics may have warmed by less than 0.8 degrees)?

I fail to see that you have any point outside of that our estimations going back past 150+ years may be slightly off.

"It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate." -s.s.

hmmm, I was aware that we only have thermometric readings of temperature for the last 100-150+ years. So basically you are doubting the ability of tree rings, pollen identification in sediments, and other methods of temperature reconstruction.

If I may reiterate my point, which I made rudely in the video post, I would say that you might be interested to know that if you go back further than 2k years, as in, more than 10k, there are temperature changes that were even greater than 1 degree, however, homo-sapiens was not around to endure them. Irregardless of previous temperature deviation, science tells us that our "freeing-up" of carbon dioxide, and creation of methane, are the culprits of the current temperature increase.

How does our ability to measure the last 2k years change that? or change the fact that we are heading for a 6 degree increase (which would not be uniform, for instance the poles have already warmed more than by 0.8 degrees, while the tropics may have warmed by less than 0.8 degrees)?

I fail to see that you have any point outside of that our estimations going back past 150+ years may be slightly off.

"It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate." -s.s.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
You are exactly right, the red line is directly measured temperature, and it shows that we are indeed breaking records. The trick is it only shows that we have hit the record for the last 100 years for which we actually have a measured record. The temperature over the last 2k years is not directly measured, but derived from proxies like tree rings. Those temperature reconstructions never hit the heights of the measured record. The speaker in the video then declares that current temperature is then a record over 2k years. The trick is to look closer. When we state that the reconstruction of the last 2k years never hits the current measured records it doesn't only mean it never hit them before today, it means that even where the measured temperature hits the record today, the reconstruction STILL doesn't come close to hitting the measured record. Seems very strong evidence that the reconstruction might have missed a record like today that happened over the last 2k years, as clearly they missed THIS ONE.


In reply to this comment by Peroxide:
I can't understand how you are interpreting Mann's graph, you do realize the red line at the end is not a projection, but in fact current measurements...

So how are you coming to the conclusion that we are not (already, if not soon) breaking records?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:

By your own admission, the composite readings are now at record highs. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention that these measurements were exactly equal to the 0.8 instrumental record. I only said that they followed the same directional trend. Read it and weep, a 2000 year-old record is a 2000 year-old record.
To argue that 'Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate,' is to willfully ignore all the other data sources. You completely miss the point that instrumental data is by far the most accurate. Proxy reconstructions are relied on in the absence of instrumental data.
The lack of widespread instrumental climate records before the mid 19th century, however, necessitates the use of natural climate archives or “proxy” data such as tree-rings, corals, and ice cores and historical documentary records to reconstruct climate in past centuries.
The curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources, even if you ignore the two instrumental lines. And what a coincidence that it matches the timeline of the industrial revolution. Ignore science at your own peril!
>> ^bcglorf:
What graph are you reading?
CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.
Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.
Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.
Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2
Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.
Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1
Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.

If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.
If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.

>> ^alcom:
Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.





The speaker in the video makes a very big deal though about the current 0.8 of the instrumental record, and similarly a very big deal about it being unprecedented in the last 10k years, which you have to admit has been plainly proven as apples to oranges.

Yes, most current proxies show a 2k year old record, except the EIV which is the most recent and deemed most accurate record. If you can accept comparing reconstructions using the same proxy data but different analysis, the EIV proxy reconstruction shows that current temperatures are not record breaking at all.

If you want to say that "the curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources" I'd say you need also observe warming trends in the reconstructions over the last 2k years. Again, the rate of change over the last century is not unprecedented in the proxy records over the last 2k years. You can again plainly see that similarly or more severe warming and/or cooling within the last 2k years in the proxy reconstructions.

Europa has a thick layer of ice, maybe a few or several miles thick, under which is a very deep liquid ocean, but "its bulk density suggests that it is similar in composition to the terrestrial planets, being primarily composed of silicate rock." According to the researchers, "GJ1214b’s radius could be explained by a bulk composition consisting of an ice-rock core surrounded by a H/He/H₂O envelope that has a water mass fraction of 50-85%."

GJ1214b is a giant ball of water 2.7 times the Earth's diameter (Uranus is about 4 times, Saturn about 9). The water must be (tens of) thousands of miles deep. There's nothing like it in our system. I can't even begin to imagine what happens to water at that kind of depth and pressure. What bizarre properties it must have. They mention superfluids and hot ice in the article, but I suspect it's even weirder.
>> ^gwiz665:
Isn't Europa actually made almost entirely of ice? Europa the moon around Jupiter, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28moon%29

So, it would take 42 years for the probe to reach the planet. Due to dilation, how much perceived time on earth would it take to receive a transmission from the orbiting probe?

@rychan it's mentioned in the video - she says that the signal from this telescope will be combined with the signals from ones on earth to create a dish 30 times the earths diameter. Pretty impressive tbh.

Very sad, very sad. But glad that they got to choose the way that they finished their time on earth.

I was just thinking that it's a fine line between supporting euthanasia and suicide at other times. I am hugely against suicide in those that are healthy (of body), in that you can't help but thinking that while they think that right at that moment it can't get better, and it's not worth going on, that maybe if they had spoken to the right people or experienced the right happen-stance that they might have had a turn around and started valuing and enjoying life.

You can say that it's a clear cut distinction, that you support those that are terminally ill and have no chance of recovery, but then where does that leave you with Iris, who was not?

It's very tricky, and I don't know whether there are hard and fast rules. Perhaps a 'rule' is that if you have the support of your family and friends then it is euthanasia, but if you're hiding the decision or they are desperately trying to stop you, then it's suicide... except that too is simplistic as maybe your family is just against any suicide on religious grounds or the like, not matter how much pain you're in.

So, yeah, very tricky... and it gives me chills to think of wilfully drinking something you know will end your life. But I can definitely see how it can give you strength and solace when you're terminally ill that you have the means to stop it once you can't take it any more.

I'll tell you how I look at all of this, and it's quite simple. Wait and see. Why? Because, the worst thing a person can do is get sucked into a trend, and this is a trend. One side will be proven right, the other wrong, in time. We've had this same debate before, however opposite, you've simply decided to forget it ever happened. Need I remind you that in the 1970's, the hype was global cooling, and that we were long overdue for an ice age, and everyone was going to die/freeze to death! That wasn't all that long ago, but I remember it well. And yes, it was a real "craze". Well, the science and evidence of that time, which was supposedly irrefutable, was proven wrong in a mere 20 years.

Now we have the endless warming debate.

Nobody can deny the temperatures have gone up over the past few decades, the evidence is there, they have. I think it's natural that we, as egotistical humans, REALLY want to take credit for being able to cause this much destruction in this short of a period of time -- the Earth has been here for billions of years -- and it only took us 100 to destroy everything. Right. I have a goose that lays golden eggs, too. The Earth was here before us, and it will be here AFTER us.

The only thing I've witnessed thus far from this debate are endless arguments (which result in nothing, ever), and mass amounts of money being made by people, with no results to date. Cars are more efficient than ever. So are factories, power plants, recycling centers, etc. Plastic bottles are thinner, more often than not they are recycled, etc. Despite these trends that have been happening for WELL over a decade now, no progress has been made, as a matter of fact, according to the "evidence", things are continuing to get worse.

Frankly, it's October 5th, in Chicago...and I'm a little cold.

I think I'm going to go run my car for a while and spill oil into Lake Michigan and find some way to emit a ton of methane into the atmosphere. If it makes it warmer, I'm all for it. I'm sick of being cold.

Seriously, though...I tend to stay out of these types of arguments (as they aren't debates, they're arguements), as neither side is actually listening to what the other side has to say. Why? Because both sides are convinced they're 100% right in EVERY facet of the debate. I have some news for both sides. Neither of you are 100% right.

I'll wait and see what happens, and in the mean time, I'll laugh at the ensuing comedy of "angreh" arguments.

Hey, this is an important one for me because it moves me so much too. I was just wondering if you understood exactly what he was saying and still found it uninteresting.

He's not saying in the clip that you're JUST made of the same stuff. It's not like he's just saying: "cars are made of metal, and toasters are made of metal".

What he's saying is that (statistically speaking) the actual, individual atoms that make up your body WERE at one point, part of a star. They were also any number of other things. Your actual body is made of stardust. And not just that. You've also been flowers and rocks and trees and water and (less-romantically) you've probably been poop for most of the time since Earth began.

Take a look at your hand... what you're looking at right now has at one point been several-hundred-thousand-degrees.

Sorry to drone on. I just find that completely fascinating. I could ponder it for much, much longer. I know you probably understood the clip. Just making sure.

In reply to this comment by westy:
I dont realy understand hwo what he is saying is that philasophical.


We are part of the universe and we are made of the same matter that makes that universe .

I guess that might be mind blowing to sumone that belive sin mystical shit but to annyone else its such a inane and obvouse statment its hardly of philasophical merrit (asuming your educated and over the age of say 10).

Allso its quite bezar to be so emotive about it.

Part of me likes it when scentists try to make sience emotive as it can atract people to science but ultimetly its disingneouse to claim anny 1 thing is more amazing than another in an ultimate sense or to be realy emotive over 1 scentific fact and not so about another.

Personally I don't care, let it end.

It's about fucking time.

The earth is fine, the people are fucked.



Liberty means nothing then, the world is truly over as we know it.

Ihre Papiere bitte und fühlen sich frei, jeden Augenblick sterben. Der Staat kümmert sich nicht.