Balta1701

Probably need about 11 more herbs and spices.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) I'm not smart enough to really contribute much to this debate, but I do believe that there were enormous climactic changes before humans, and there will be again after humans. And there clearly are some while humans are here. What we can do to change this is beyond the scope of my knowledge. If you really want to understand this topic and take some time on it, I can put together a primer on it, at whatever depth you want. I've got 2 weeks of undergraduate class in late April that I'm teaching on Climate Change. (Edit: might take a little time though)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:34 AM) How about dung beetles? Have you checked them yet? Frighteningly, yes. (They have a habit of dying in droughts, for example. They're a species that seems to adapt particularly slowly to changing precipitation conditions. You can treat some of their deaths as large scale climate experiments. Efforts to introduce them in African areas a few decades ago failed when the drought hit the Sahel region in the early 1980's.)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) This is the arrogance, right here. No, they haven't been. SOME of them have been researched quite thoroughly, I am sure. You cannot possibly tell me that there is prolific research out there on every other possible natural factor - only the ones people have thought about. Now I will give you that, in all likelihood, the remaining unknowns out there are small enough factors that they are probably not major players in the equations for global climate. Probably. But you do not know that. You can't possibly know that with full certainty. This is why I'm saying they're hunting for a mechanism though. The atmosphere isn't some region which doesn't follow the rules of physics and chemistry. You really can figure out most of the climate change math with a few hours of work, starting from scratch. It falls out of the basic chemistry and physics rules which were ironed out in the early half of the 20th century...and those rules do a remarkably good job of making predictions about the geologic record as well. If there is a mechanism out there which fits with the laws of physics that explains climate variability other than CO2, it's had enormous sums of money thrown at it. At this point, postulating some unknown mechanism is quite close to postulating new physics. We're throwing tens of millions of dollars right now at determining how interstellar neutrinos interact with clouds, just in case that happens to play a role.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) OK, that's what happened. I make more and my wife makes less. What's the reason for that? It's probably in the "Total amount you earn". The Republicans agreed to this tax cut, so the less you make, the more you're paying in taxes. If your making $50k per year, your taxes should go marginally downwards, while if your wife is making $25 k a year, her taxes should go marginally upwards. When you file a joint return, that will somehow even itself out.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:21 AM) I automatically assume nothing, as you will see in my statements. The non-human factors may be really, really small - you and I don't know. Of course you can explain fully human-caused because its studied factors with good data. I'd say that the non-human-caused ones have been researched quite thoroughly as well. Perhaps better than the human-caused ones...there's more money out there to research why it's not human-caused. That research is done quite thoroughly as well.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) I was told stocks and bonds. I guess I could find out exact details but I can't change it. On a semi-related note: Does anyone know how they figure out how much to take out of your check for federal taxes? I found a payroll calculator online that was very accurate for me last year when trying to estimate out my checks. When I put in the numbers for 2011 it says that I should be getting about $30 more this year. They are taking more out in federal taxes but less for social security. When I checked my wife's check it says she'll actually be getting $7 less. Again they are taking less out of SS but a lot more out of federal taxes. The expiring "making work pay" tax credit in the stimulus bill was about an $800 a year credit on your total federal taxes. ($400/person) That has been replaced by a 33% cut in the payroll tax. What you should see is the amount you pay in Social Security going down by 33%, and the amount you pay in federal taxes going up by about $33 a month ($400 a year per person over 12 months).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) Federal income taxes should stay materially the same in 2011 for nearly everyone. But, maybe your income went up? Or maybe the company realized they were under-withholding and bumped it up for 2011? If you're making under about $35 k per year, you're going to pay more in taxes this year than last, and the lower the number, the more your taxes will go up.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:15 AM) I have little doubt that CO2 levels changing like that are anthropogenic, and I have little doubt that will have some negative effect. All the more reason to address the causes. But what others are saying is, that is NOT the same as saying all the recent change in temperature, precipitation and other factors HAVE to be human-caused. What I'm stressing though is that there is zero reason to automatically assume that they aren't entirely human caused. Entirely human caused is fully reasonable within the current data, just as 50% human caused is. The difference in my mind is that I have a set of mechanisms by which I can explain fully human caused...and every one who proposes that the changes happening globally right now are not human caused is out there struggling for a mechanism.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) On the other hand, how anyone can point to a system so incredibly complex as climate and the atmosphere and say with 100% certainty (or even 98% certainty) that the changes can only be human-caused, seems incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. There are just so many variables at play, and we can't possibly understand all of it at the same time to make a truly complete judgment. The arrogance to me is not in believing that humans are powerful enough to shape their environment. Humans have been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years, on massive scales (the area where you're currently sitting used to be a gigantic swamp, for example. For another, you don't have a sabre-toothed cat chasing you around). If there is arrogance...I think you can find it in the assumption that everything will always come out ok...that we're always going to wind up on the happy side of the margin of error. No good scientist is going to say that they can prove to 98% certainty that all of the changes currently happening in the environment are because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But no good scientist should say that they can prove that only 50% of it is, either, and if a margin of error is given on the numbers...you can't automatically assume that reality is on the safe side.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:05 AM) I agree with Y2H...it seems like we are flattering ourselves quite a bit here... Really, no, we're not. The Earth's atmosphere and planetary energy budgets are very finely tuned nobs, and the amount of deposited carbon in the earth is very large compared to the size of those nobs. I think this is the best way I can say it. The difference in atmospheric CO2 between an ice-age state and an interglacial state is the difference between 200 and 275 ppm CO2. We've got more than a few proxies that say that, including ice cores from both ice caps. 75 ppm CO2. The amount of CO2 we've released in the atmosphere has been enough to go from 280 to 390. We've already released enough CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of a century to change the atmosphere by more than it changed when the last ice age ended. And right now, that number is going up by 2.5 ppm per year. It will take only a couple decades for humankind to double atmospheric CO2. CO2 in the atmosphere is an incredibly powerful lever.

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 02:45 AM) http://www.nba.com/bulls/stacey-king-soundboard.html Times the stacy king soundboard has been posted in the last 48 hours: 4. I'm wondering if I should just make a thread for that thing and pin it.

Answer 1: Honda Civic. Answer 2: Chevrolet Volt.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) I agree with your general points here - that climate change is surely partly anthropogenic, but that we don't know how much... that its likely not 100%... and that we are doing things to move in the right direction. Really, the idea that it's not 100% anthropogenic is the natural conservatism of the scientists writing the IPCC reports coming out. They can't establish firmly that it's 110% human fault, so they leave themselves a reasonable margin of error, and the mainstreaming of the results assumes that the conservative margin of error is the right one, not the alarmist side. Reality is...for the last decade in particular, we should have gone the other way. We're right now coming out of the deepest solar minimum in a couple centuries. The last decade should have been one of the coldest in the last century. Instead, it was the opposite. I can't establish to complete certainty that it's entirely anthropogenic, so don't mistake what I'm saying here...but I'd certainly disagree with a statement that it is "Likely" not 100% anthropogenic, because 100% of climate change being anthropogenic is certainly within reasonable margins of error.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 07:50 AM) Yep, the very wealthy benefit from the higher minimum wage, health care, social security, Medicare, Medicade . . . So...by "The Democratic Party" you mean "The Democratic party of the 1960's."

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) One of the more ludicrous things I've read in a long time. I disagree with you here. I don't think the mood came across correctly. Yeah, there were points that celebration and cheering was appropriate (Gabby opened her eyes), but there were points I just wanted the crowd to be quiet.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 07:24 PM) I think everyone knows this is all about saving ourselves. But I don't believe our "actions" are creating the devastating consequences many of you seem too. I DO think our contribution to climate change is having an effect/has had an effect, however, it's of my opinion that said effect is minimal at best, and it's our ego's that require and create the belief we are doing much more damage than we actually are. Also, I think the steps we've taken (or have begun to take), albeit baby steps, are steps in the right direction to undo what little damage we've done. I also understand that the reality of modern life is that some destruction will be left in our wake, but again, aside from absolute nuclear devastation, I don't think what we've done thus far is the major factor for "modern climate change", I think most of it's natural, has happened before, and will happen again. That being said, if we can minimize our footprint, I'm all for it...unless it makes living modern life unbearable...I'm not interested in living as they did in the early 1900's just to be green. I want my electricity, and I want it now...and I want as much of it as I want. Yes, the climate has changed before, we'll all agree on that...but as a person working in Earth Science, I have to ask...what mechanism are you proposing which causes this modern climate shift other than what humans are doing? Science doesn't just let you say that things are cyclic or that thing change unless you postulate a mechanism by which that change happens.

Not enough chicken while you were gone Colonel.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:27 AM) Joe I'm surprised I don't see Viciedo aka Hotfire on your opening day roster. He doesn't belong there.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 07:17 PM) and they are completely stuck with that stadium, after the tax increase today there's no way they get any sort of sweetheart deal from the state Well, there's a lot more details there. First of all...that stadium, flaws and all, is still their biggest asset; it's a guaranteed 30,000 ticket sales/game on a bad day. Yeah, they lose skybox and parking revenue, but mandatory revenue streams count for something. Secondly...unlike, for example, the Sox...there's no way the Cubs can make a credible threat to leave the state...because they aren't leaving that stadium.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 03:43 AM) Kind of a ticky tack point, isn't it? Thome was better, but Thome and Dunn are pretty similar hitters, and Dunn is a far better hitter over the course of a season than Thome is right now. More importantly, give that analogy some love! I'm not giving that analogy love. Jimmy was that good.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 06:43 PM) Wow. So Vladimir Guerrero is better than Adam Dunn? Sure, if you are giving value to players who swing at anything and use loads of pine tar. And Thome is better than Dunn? That one is the most comical of all, considering Dunn is pretty much the same hitter that Thome was 7 years ago. Ok, I've defended Dunn and you're right...but I gotta step up for Big Jim here. 7 years ago, Big Jim put up a 154 OPS+ in Philly. Dunn is very consistent; he'll give uo a 130-ish OPS+ every year, but he's only topped 140 once in his career, back in 2004. From 1993 to 2007, Jimmy put up a .985 OPS and a 152 OPS+. Dunn has never gotten those numbers in a single season. Big Jim wouldn't be better than Dunn at 600 at bats right now...but let's not sell Jim short. He was absolutely f***ing ridiculous.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 06:21 PM) The Cubs are worth about 10% less than what they paid for it, they are going to struggle to get any help to fix that dump and they're saddled with bad contracts... they will have to exhaust all revenue streams and it's why even though Garza is a very good pitcher I can understand Cub fans scratching their heads about giving away prospects for him at this point. Their ticket sales have gradually declined the last 2 seasons and was down nearly 3000 a game from 2008 and 2000 a game from 2009. If each person spends $50 a game, that's $12 million less revenue compared to 2008. There's a serious revenue downside for the ownership group if that team competes with the Pirates again next year, and they're locked into those contracts whether they win or not.

I'm not sure I caught anything. Other than your diseases.

Link