Discussions

6 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

*snip*

I assume your just playing a roll to match your avatar and commenting against such videos that aim to try to rid the world of characters, as your avatar represents, like you?  

Being quiet right now would probably be the wisest move on your part.

21 minutes ago, cbae wrote

@fanbaby: You're really one insecure fellow, aren't you?

That's the only explanation.

Yep, still Seattle. Downtown, this time. Lots of food trucks and assorted hipster paraphernalia

I hide.

At Amazon, these days

Mine is a Lenovo X230. With the docking station.

Yeah, that's all

When did this happen (Windows 7 Enterprise)?

The big box stores are going to be extinct in a few years anyways...

. <- point

@_@ <- RetroRecursion

That is a 3rd grade level oversimplification of the phenomenon. According to that graph, there should be an "atmospheric mirror" at a very specific altitude that bounces back "heat".

That's not what's happening. The infrared radiation is scattered and deflected IN ALL DIRECTIONS by CO2 molecules. If there were less CO2 molecules, less heat would be deflected back to the surface, and more heat would escape the gravity well.

Again, I'm over-simplifying, but please, for the love of $DEITY, do not take these graphs as a realistic depiction of what's going on. It's for illustration purposes only.

4 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

I especially love these parts

This paper has purposely been kept more qualitative than quantitative to avoid
elaborate formula and explanations – and to make it easy for all to digest. The more
theoretically competent readers should have few problems if they wish to perform
quantitative calculations for themselves, following the guidelines presented here.

and

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author thanks Inventex Aqua ab, Ekero, Sweden for the financial support without which this paper would not have been produced and two brave anonymous peer reviewers making the publication a fact.

Seriously? That's what you call a peer-reviewed paper?