Currently? That’s hard to say. The data won’t be crunched for several months.
We better hope so.
Maybe little green aliens are playing with the thermostat.
We know the average time between the previous cycles but certainly not down to even the century level with any accuracy. It’s like volcanoes, we know the approximate average time between eruptions but there are so many unknown factors involved there’s no way to predict them with any certainty.
No, that isn’t remotely close to what you stated in the quoted post.
Look, if you want to use the term adapt in an evolutionary sense, fine. I was using it in the broader sense. As in we adapt our civilization to our current climate. Hope that helps.
P.S. Not every discussion need be a pissing match.
1 Like
Well if you don’t understand the terminology, don’t use it.
The world adapt has more meanings than adaption in an evolutionary sense. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. I used the word correctly. Perhaps you should brush up on context clues in the paragraph? That might help decrease the number of times you misconstrue what posters are saying.
You spilled some salt…
Your request was completely out of left field and made absolutely no sense.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198
Read for yourself.
Record snow in Seattle… And so chilly in Cal. and what’s this?
https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/Hawaii-recorded-what-may-be-the-lowest-elevation-13607099.php
That’s nice. You do understand the “Global” part of Global Warming, right? What’s going on in Australia right now?
We all know the world revolves around 'merica
Thoughtful and ingenious. You’re welcome.
But essentially wrong. There would be less mass in the solution regardless whether you spilled some salt or not.
It sounds like the answer a smart alec fourth grader would give. 
In this case the apparent loss of mass is due to the uncertainty in the the measuring instruments. Mass is conserved in closed systems. Always.
That conclusion requires information (the accuracy of the instruments) not in evidence. Mass and energy are interchangeable. The loss in mass may be the result of conversion of some of the mass of the two ingredients to energy, which was released as heat from the system. In other words, the system was not closed because it allowed energy to escape.
I see that I did not make myself entirely clear the first time (or second, or third, or whatever time) and even now let me make the exercise more clear. And you are correct about the instruments.
Let us say that you mass a container which holds some water, a cap for the container, and some salt. The total mass is, let’s say 22.00 g. This quantity, if reported correctly, assumes that you are using a balance in which the uncertainty is in the hundreths place (I neglected to make that assumption clear). Most top-loading electronic balances that provide a read-out to the nearest 0.01 g actually have uncertainty of about +/- 0.01 g assuming the balance is working as advertised. (My students perform experiments to see if the balance is working as advertised.) These days they run about $400-500.
Now lets say you carefully place all of the salt into the container, apply the cap, and dissolve the salt with no leakage. So, yeah, we assume a closed system was maintained, yet another assumption I may not have clarified. A second measurement after dissolving shows a loss of 0.02 g. Because that results from the subtraction of two measurements, both of which are uncertain, gives you a total experimental uncertainty of about +/- 0.02 g, it is reasonable to conclude that mass did not change.
So, yeah, the problem was about uncertainty.
By the way, mass and energy are proportional. The proportionality constant is the square of the speed of light.
Converting a few hundreds of a gram to energy would be enough to power a light bulb for hundreds of years.
Not exactly something that would go unnoticed.
Good call, dantes. At least somebody here knows what they’re talking about.
