Dieselpower

Pardon me, I'm just worried about extinction of 80 to 90% of all biodiversity, rising sea tides, increasing storm damages, drought, floods, crop failure, resource scarcity, mass migration and what ever other effect of this happening in a timespan of a few generations. Earth returning to 'normal' in a the timespan of a few hundred years instead of hundreds-of-thousands of years is the problem, not the fact that there are fluctuations in the earth's climate on timescale eternity. I'm fine to understand your viewpoint if you were to be immune to these effects, but you are in all likeliness not.

Of course, the title of the link that PB666 posted is pretty sensational (they are storm deposited, not flying), but there actually seems to be quite a fair bit of research behind it. Here is some excellent background information by a former NYT author: http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2015/08/14/boulders-and-superstorms-redux/ Please have a look at the topic that was closed earlier this week. Human induced climate change is real and a renounced scientific paradigm that has been researched for more than 100 years. You should be afraid of the consequences, scientists are, politicians are, people are. That is why we are trying to limit its impacts in Paris right now. Probably. In the previous thread the climate deniers get all the freedom to spew their BS from the admins here. They rather close the thread than to bring the discussion on a grown-up level and bring to order those who can't.

[quote name='WedgeAntilles']Wasn't talking to you. [/QUOTE] Wedge, do you think this is a fair way to have a discussion, by answering very selectively and avoiding critical comments of others? And it has been raised before, you don't seem to understand how science works and how difficult it is to topple a set scientific paradigm. You will have to come with an alternative theory, a rigorous set of data to back it up and it should explain the trend better than the current theory. None of this can be found in your answers. Stating this objectively and without attacking you personally: your arguments are of inferior quality to that of the scientific discussion on climate change: - you tell us you have alternative explanations, yet you often do not have data or arguments to back it up - when you do provide us with data, it is debunked or found misinterpreted - you have yet to acknowledge a single flaw or counter-argument to your ideas - when you can't find arguments, you move towards fatalism and argue we can't change anything anyways - and finally, you attack us personally, by calling us 'alarmists' Conclusively, you are not approaching this discussion in a scientific way. Therefore, I find it increasingly ridiculous that you are criticising the work of thousands of scientists, without being capable of actually articulating why. As already said by others, the discussion is practically over. Human induced global warming is taking place, and saying it isn't is similar to saying smoking does not lead to cancer. Looking forward to a reply in which you don't answer selectively.

Hey More Boosters, thanks for dropping in. There is the consensus among scientists that global warming is taking place due to the effects of extra CO2 caused by human activities. In the last decades evidence for this has grown, and by now there have been thousands of studies done, and none of them could find proof for an alternative explanation, such as through natural variations in solar output or pure chance. Here is a graph depicting several major studies which compared natural and human contributions to global warming: [img]http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Attribution50-65_med.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57[/url] As it applies to each and every scientific paradigm, I would propose that opponents of this theory provide [U]evidence [/U]that this is not true, instead of just casting doubt and making it appear that the work of more than 99% of the scientists on climate change provides not enough 'conclusive evidence'.

Put aside the dodging of criticism, answering selectively and admitting that you just want to troll - can you explain to me once again why you think your believe is more valid than the articles written by thousands of scientists? Are those who study climate for a living bought by solar panel producers? Or is it the governments that want to limit your lifestyle?

[quote name='Stargate525']I have provided a source. You have provided no evidence beyond your word as to why said source should be invalidated and have, by your own admission, not even READ it. ...Shall I mail it to you in book form so you can burn it as well, ecclesiarch?[/QUOTE] This is ridiculous! First of all, do you know who these guys are? They are obviously not scientists, but disguised lobbyists for the oil industry. [url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/02/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-organisation-funders[/url] Secondly, you do not reply to any of the responses we post that refute your criticism. Instead you move on and come up with yet another 'doubt'. The only thing you do here in this thread is posting some links, trying to cast uncertainty on climate change and pretend you are the victim when I doubt your sources. How much longer do we need to continue until you admit that you are wrong? Or is there no such point and you are here just to sabotage every thread that deals with climate change? Are you driven by to fear to having to accept your own responsibility in the matter, or do you have ulterior motives? Please think about what you are doing, and for which reason. If you can't change your ways, and you do not want to believe in climate change, fine, it is up to you. But don't try to convince or manipulate us by casting doubt. As I said in the other thread: if you look on peer reviewed scholarly articles on climate only 24 out of 13 950 articles reject human induced global warming. That's 00.17 % 99.83 % of the scientific articles versus your opinion. @ Stargate If you would have any understanding on how the scientific progress works, you would not have a doubt on the strength of the consensus that global warming is caused by humans. These are not politicians that have an opinion and try to find arguments to back it up. The biggest pleasure of a scientist is to prove a theory wrong. Nobody has been able to disprove human induced climate change for decades now.

[quote name='Stargate525']As in literally getting greener, becoming more lush, areas once were desert are now becoming scrubland. [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/112/39/12133.abstract[/url] And some general food for thought: [url]http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] ... and some areas that are scrubland are turning into desserts. [quote]However, there are strong regional differences in the extent and direction of change, and in the apparent role of changing woody and herbaceous components in driving those temporal trends. [/quote] In fact: [quote] Higher primary production is not necessarily associated with a higher biodiversity and the decline in populations of economically and culturally important trees and shrubs—despite the increase in woody cover—may explain the negative perception of vegetation condition among some local populations (51, 52). [/quote] 'Greener' doesn't mean [I]more[/I] green. I'm not even going to bother reading that tragic waste from your second link Stargate. Why do you disqualify yourself so strongly by linking to these loonies? Please stop bringing in rubbish, trying to cast doubt and confusion where there is none. Human induced climate change is real, and we have a moral responsibility to bring down our contributions to it to zero.

[quote name='Wesreidau']If there is one thing scientific progress demonstrates, it is that 97% of the world's top scientists can believe in phlogsten and aether and still be dead wrong. Or might not agree at all.[/QUOTE] Yes, science has come a long way since 1667. I'm not disputing that there cannot be a paradigm shift, but the facts are showing a different way. Evidence is mounting and there is a lack of an alternative competing theory at the moment. In fact, if you look on peer reviewed scholarly articles on climate only 24 out of 13 950 articles reject human induced global warming. [url]http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart[/url] That's 00.17 % Stop casting doubt, there clearly isn't.

Human induced Climate Change is real and happening right now. There is an overwhelming support for this theory by more than 97% of all scientists active in this field backed up by decades of research and data. Please stop repeating this nonsense, it is the same as saying the world is flat, we can travel faster than light or we all go to heaven. Not happening, science says no. This article does not refute that knowledge in any way by the way. Average global temperatures are going up in an unprecedented level, as is the production of CO2 by the burning of biomass and fossil fuels. There maybe variances in where and how much temperatures change due to oceans storing heat and acting as an intermediate variable. For over two decades we have a clear causal chain, which we can discuss, test and debunk. Yet, there has been no major publication that has provided a better explanation, and in fact evidence keeps on piling up confirming the hypotheses. If you are not a scientist and you are denying human induced global warming, you are most likely to be a conspiracy believer or paid by fossil fuel companies. And if you are neither of those, it is time to wake-up.

It might sound a lot to you, but it isn't that much in comparison to the world's surface area available. Probably most of it can anyways be integrated on roof-tops and current constructions. The estimates that I found are considerably less by the way, not anywhere near 200.000 square miles. Maybe you got confused with kilometers? On a map, it could look something like this:

I can confirm this super annoying bug. Changing the terrain level either way did not help. I am really disappointed in Squad right now. I have been really patient with bugs so far, knowing that every patch would be an improvement. And I have been through many since I bought this game 3 years ago! However, I feel that since the "1.0" version is out, these bugs should have been tackled. I already had so many crashes and disappearing Kerbals it takes all the fun out of the game. I hate that I have to restart the game every time I play at least once, but above all I feel I cannot progress in the game because core elements just say *poof*. Please, somebody have a look at my save game and save valentina from dying. http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=70410883476159728993 I would like to play on

Coincidentally I was thinking the same the other day. I believe it is a great concept and it would eliminate the need of implementing - and thereby the rendering and calculations - of a full-fledged asteroid belt.

,nnnnmmmnnn

That's really sloppy terminology from wikipedia. A theory is not a fact and can be debated / falsified. To start with, theories describe interaction and direction between an independent and a dependent variable in a general fashion. Good theories are generalisable and specifically precise as to advance our understanding of the world. However, it is quite possible that you have two competing plausible theories explaining the same outcome. That's why in scientific circles these theories are constantly tested and improved in new research. From years of research in a certain direction the scientific community starts to accept certain theories and viewpoints above others. This creates a scholarly paradigm, which is basically a set of believes and theories that is regarded as the closest thing to the truth. Examples of paradigms are Einstein's relativity theory and plate tectonics, and there are many more in social sciences but that's due to their highly complicated testing of empirical rigorousness and constructivist nature.

wait I don't get it. Is C coming from your power supply or not? It's hard to see what is what on the picture, but schematically it should be like this: [powersupply unit] |---x-Motherboard |---X-Motherboard | |---[]-Harddrive |---[]-GPU |---[]-GPU* * it seems your GPU needs two 12v plugs, right? Where [] is a 12v, 4 pin coming from your PSU, x is a 12v 4 pin for your motherboard and X is a 20 pin connector for your motherboard.

It looks like C&D should be connected to A&B. But if you are not sure maybe you should just ask a friend who knows more about hardware? Additionally, I would make sure the cables are not in the way and bundled nicely before you close it up again.

I think the crux of your point is exactly that statistics are merely statistics and predictions are merely predictions. With so many variables and confounders in place, the best thing that can be achieved is a mere approximation of climate change, never a certainty. In that light, I love this comic from xkcd for portraying this dilemma:

kate nash - birds. /randomness

Just incredible. Well done How long were you busy on this crazy idea?

Made a SSTO which delivers a payload of 11.25 tons to orbit (75km), returns and lands near the launchpad (~151m) I used Mechjeb because it is so tedious quick saving and loading every time to get your landing coordinates right... I think payload size is just as important as getting near the launchpad: honestly, what's the point in going up there with your rocket if you do not leave anything up in orbit? Pictures:

@Hawn, this has been dealt with as much as possible in Mechjeb (it happens to me also without mechjeb), only a KSP update can fix this.

So I've been trying to get to Moho for the last days (!), and I haven't been a bit effective. Getting to other planets with the same design (Jool's moons are no problem) seems to be a walk in the park compared to this mission. Hopefully, you guys can help me out? First, let me explain what I have been trying. 1. I enter into an orbit at around 620km with around 3600 Units of fuel left. 4 Nerva engines are ready to propel a landing stage into trans-planetary orbit. - in this example, I've parked at a ~614 circular orbit. 2. I have Mechjeb & Protractor Mod strapped on my rocket, so I use them to calculate when I have to burn. But four problems arise, listed them as a to d. a. The suggestions that Protractor does are absolutely not in line with those from http://ksp.olex.biz/. http://ksp.olex.biz/: Phase Angle: -251.79°* Ejection Angle: 110.38° Ejection velocity: 3357.56 m/s Protractor Mod: *) Note that I add 360 to arrive at positive values: 117.33 for Protractor and 108.21 for ksp.olex b. Ejection Angle NEVER occurs at indicated Phase Angle. In both calculations. This makes sense since you can be at any point in the orbit when the right Phase Angle to Moho occurs. But how should I round it off? Burn before Phase Angle occurs at the right ejection angle? Or after? c. When should I start burning? When I burn according to the Protractor mod, at a vessel eject angle of 69, my vessel eject angle continues increasing. At the end of my burn, when I've compensated the delta speed, I have a ejection angle of 108! d. My ejection velocity is not accurate enough to bring at Moho's orbit. Adding /decreasing speed does not lead to being captured in orbit of Moho. * see that I officially still have to burn 255 m/s, but doing so gets me way inside orbit: 3. In the end, I stop burning until my PE intersects Moho's orbit, and I hope (in vain) that I might get caught in the next 20 orbits or so. When that does not work out, I try to decrease AP and/ or change inclination to Moho similar levels until fuel runs out. Never have I had a predicted gravity influence of Moho. Also, since Moho's orbit is eccentric and inclined, I have trouble determining what is more important: matching inclination or eccentricity? Thanks for your help!

Nice! but a small question... how did you get to Moho? I've send 6 ships in a similar orbit, but still haven't managed a single time to time the intersection right.