skiskyrock

it is perfectly legal to own an RPG, just takes a tax stamp for a destructive device. And a stamp for each rocket. Rocket availability is a bit of a hurdle. My point wasn't that civilians should have unrestricted access to everything, but that McChrystal's idea that only the military can be trusted with certain types of weapons since THEY don't slaughter civilians kind of flies in the face of history.

On the basis of an individual round, you'd be correct. On the basis of kinetic energy that can be expended per reload cycle (AR-15 with 100 round drum vs M1 and 8 round "en bloc" clip) you'd be wrong -- woefully wrong. I don't think regulation ought to be determined solely by the energy of a single round, but instead how much energy can be continuously delivered over a larger period of time. For instance, a minute, taking into account reloading by an expert user. So how much energy can a classroom full of first graders safely absorb? I find the whole line of argument pointless. There is no way to fit a gun with so many guards and bumpers that it will be safe if fired in a crowded theater. The problem begins and ends with the person firing the gun. And to the idea that weapon X is too powerful for mere civilians ... this is ceeding them to the folks that brought us Kent State.

uhhh.... where do you think the 30-06 came from?

from the EU position statement on discussion papers published in EGU open access Journals: "Discussion papers are proceedings-type publications, comparable to traditional conference proceedings, working papers, preprints/e-prints, etc. (see arXiv.org, Nature Precedings, etc.). Like other proceedings-type publications, discussion papers are citable and permanently archived but are not peer-reviewed." http://www.egu.eu/about/statements/position-statement-on-the-status-of-discussion-papers-published-in-egu-interactive-open-access-journals/ so, the paper you linked isn't peer reviewed Here is the link to the accepted version: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.html

Well, lets see. Maybe we could do something about the 1/3 of states that don't report mental health information to the instant check system. Also we could up the number of convicted felons prosecuted for attempting to buy guns. In a two year period 27,000 felons failed the NICS check for purchasing a firearm in Pennsylvania. They were felons, checked the box that indicated they weren't felons, then signed the line that indicates that they acknowledge that lying on the form is against the law. You'd think that the trial for this would last about 5 minutes and have a 100% conviction rate. They managed to get 423 convictions. A whopping 1.5% conviction rate.

probably metal fume fever http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_fume_fever

Having listened to drive time radio in Philadelphia in the late 80's when Howard Stern was trying to unseat John Debella, the current prank seems to be as tasteful and restrained as an episode of Morning Edition.

I'm arguing that, based on data, you can't think that volcanoes have a large effect on climate, but anthropogenic CO2 won't. The CO2 effect (for a doubling of CO2) is of larger magnitude, and it's sustained over a long period.

I understand how sulfate aerosols work. To use your analogy, you claim that the effects of the lid (CO2) are small, but the effects (forcings) of the cardboard (aerosols) are significant. The data show that the effects of the aerosols are transient, and generally smaller (in absolute magnitude, obviously it is a negative forcing) than the effect of CO2,and the effect of CO2 is sustained. Now if you want to argue that the climate sensitivity for cooling is different than the climate sensitivity for heating, or that the sensitivity to aerosols is different than the sensitivity to CO2, I'd like to see a peer reviewed reference. Samller version of figure from first post attached

I'm confused. You argue that a volcanic eruption represents a shock to the climate system, but that human influence on climate is small. The forcing associated with doubling CO2 is calculated as 3.7 W/M^2, and this effect will persist for centuries. The attached figure shows the volcanic forcings in the historical record, and very few reach a forcing of -3 W/M^2, and persists for only a few years. How do you reconcile a low climate sensitivity with a fast response to volcanoes?

You are seriously misinformed. CO2 has to act to warm the climate. It can't not act that way, and the magnitude of the forcing can be calculated from simple physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing The hockeystick graph and the associated methodology has been examined by the National Academy of Science an the conclusion has been upheld. Other scientists have replicated the work and have confirmed it's conclusions using other techniques and independent proxy measurements. Take a look at the references below, it might cause you to re-evaluate your sources of information. CO2 lags temperature: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm Hockeystick has been debiunked: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

It probably doesn't come from where you think. About 25% of the total FDA budget is user fees, and 77% of the new drug review process is paid for by the new drug application fee.

You do understand that if the US produces a greater percentage of a smaller total we can still be experiencing peak oil and be a world leader in oil production.

And yet you post this using the internet.

We've had it for about 5 years. My wife telecommutes, and it has worked very well for us. Excellent customer service and uptime. I don't fanatically check upload and download speeds, but we have no problem with streaming video/video conferencing. The only drawback is that the backup battery for telephone service in power outages only lasts about 2 years before needing replacement.

Interestingly, the "once every hundred and fifty year event" has happened once in the last 800 years. http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/alley1.html

The metallurgy should have no problem handling the cartridge, but you'll have a rifle originally built to feed a bottleneck rifle cartridge that has been modified to feed a straight walled pistol cartridge with a larger rim diameter. I'd be more worried about reliability. Maybe you could arrange a trade for a savage 10/110 bolt in 308 or 30-06.

I'm referring to the trend in Rush's Nature link.

Hmm, it seems a may have to amit my error given the info in the natrue link I just provided Because for it to have ended it would have to have started to begin with Query, is a 2000 year trend a good indicator ? You do realize that the trend in the paper is only up to 1900? And that this is for one spot in the subarctic in Finland, not a global temperature reconstruction? And that the variance in this limited data set is so large that the global warming signal would be undetectable?

no corkscrew, no bottle opener... lame

Works when pasted in a browser

What the article doesn't mention is that the quantities of these gases are small. For instance the total emissions of fluorocarbons from all sources is equivalent to 6,500 to 9200 tons of CO2... current emissions of CO2 are in around 30 giga tons/year SF6 is around 4 parts per trillion, NF3 levels around 0.2ppt Current CO2 levels are around 400 parts per million. So even though the gasses have high global warming potentials, their impact isn't a primary concern. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trifluoride">http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098[/url When with these knuckleheads get it through their thick sculls that the result they/we want to accomplish........oh never mind. Too dumb to get it. Pearls before swine, yada, yada, yada. What the article doesn't mention is that the quantities of these gases are small. For instance the total emissions of fluorocarbons from all sources is equivalent to 6,500 to 9200 tons of CO2... current emissions of CO2 are in around 30 giga tons/year SF6 is around 4 parts per trillion, NF3 levels around 0.2ppt Current CO2 levels are around 400 parts per million. So even though the gasses have high global warming potentials, their impact isn't a primary concern. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trifluoride http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.html/

To the extent that 30:1 could be called a division; yes, you are right. You are hearing only a tiny fraction of what is being said about anthropogenic global warming. I'm a practicing scientist. I've been aware of AGW as an issue since 88, and I've been following the peer reviewed literature since 2003. There is no serious debate about the reality of AGW in the peer reviewed literature. The tiny handful of papers the skeptics have published have, to put it mildly, not held up well. The academic peer review system isn't perfect, but it is the best system anyone has ever come up with to separate the shit from the Shinola. Unfortunately there is another outlet for the shit.

the word "lead" isn't PC and they have to substitute traditional?

I'm dying to hear your opinion on the IR absorbance spectrum bit, please please expand on your comment. Why don’t you expand on the fact that there have been 19 warmer first quarters, while there have never been higher co2 concentrations? If there is a causal relationship between co2 and temps don’t you think it would be a bit warmer than it is? As I have explained (and am getting tired of doing so) CO2 is not the only factor driving climate. We are seeing internal variability (el nino/la Nina) and other forcings (solar cycle, aerosols) superimposed on the increase due to CO2. There is a good article on the Houston chronicle website detailing the effects with respect to el nino. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/ There is a great paper by Foster and Rhamsdorf that did multiple regression using solar intensity, aerosols, volcanic eruptions, and el nino/la nina. No models, just regression. They found a residual in the data that was increasing linearly over time, just like CO2, that could not be explained by any of the other factors. And the effect is the same for all five temperature datasets. I see your study and raise you one. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html Comment from the journal editor in question on this paper: "In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously." http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf