[removed]

[removed]

The word genetic was coined in the early 1800's (circa 1830) by Scottish philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle and head that meaning of "pertaining to origins". Darwin used it similarly to refer to biological origins. Although the exact mechanisms and details were not discovered until later, the idea that plants and animals pass on traits has long been known, its what farming and animal husbandry have been based on for millennia. Darwin was simply expanding on that idea to apply to more substantial change over a greater time period. The invention of the word gene and its connection to genetics came later, by almost a century (circa 1910), with the word genetic already having been in use.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Climate models don't have a great track record at making predictions? [needs citation]

[removed]

Thank you. If you are still interested the edit on my post may help clarify what I’m looking for.

That's a great question. Online search says its from the Greek meaning generative and before that, origin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics#:~:text=11%20External%20links-,Etymology,%CE%B3%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B9%CF%82%20genesis%20meaning%20%22origin%22.

So probably means the same sort of thing but the later discoveries took that name as well.

I’m asking with regards to the application/assessment of carbon credits, which regulators will decide based on (a degree of) consensus about which multiplier is appropriate. The two numbers used most commonly are 25 and 84, and I am trying to gain an understanding of which is most likely to stand up to scrutiny/be most accepted in calculation.

> most quickly-accessible answers are 25x CO2. The IPCC reports it as 84. This is a huge discrepancy

You're probably comparing apples to oranges. Their effects are not time invariant: methane has a stronger effect in the short term but breaks down sooner, whereas enough CO2 to cause the same amount of warming in that period would have a far more disastrous effect in the long term.

[removed]

[removed]

Females more often get autoimmune conditions, and are less susceptible to many viral infections. So very loosely yes.

But given that the treatment for autoimmune diseases is immunosuppressive, and that increases infection risk, it’s complicated.

This tendency relies on repeated collisions so it doesn't apply on the timescale of us doing spaceflight. An individual satellite keeps its inclination. If we launch so many that they will all collide with something and produce tons of dust then this dust will tend to accumulate in an equatorial orbit in the distant future (in regions where atmospheric drag doesn't deorbit it first).

Do artificial satellites also experience this tendency to be pushed into equatorial orbit?

[removed]

[removed]

Not necessarily how it works. If you had active 3d seismic with high vertical and time resolution (4d) and high resolution surface passive seismic from usgs surface arrays and monitoring wells with high resolution VSP arrays surrounding the area in a shallow active seismic area, you might be able to refine a process specific to that site that might work in other places but it’s also going to require the same amount of input data from the control site. Also the controlling processes that initiate the process can range anywhere from the mantle to induced events from reactivating and slip tendency which could be anything from lubrication to critical stress thresholds.

Then it becomes the challenge of depth and resolution of what’s actually useful since many of those technologies aren’t penetrating to the depths necessary to really get a good set of data.

This process is being worked on by others. One day it’ll probably be able to be generalized enough to give better predictive models but any of the seismic monitoring aside from that the usgs does is extremely expensive and typically private companies during o&g exploration so that data isn’t going public or going to be shared any time soon and it’s also not typically in areas that would be extremely useful per se both due to the area and current tech

This might be the case for some electric cookers but not all.

I ran a short experiment on mine. A Beko model D 532, solid plate electric hob. Power consumption was measured with a home smart meter. Each time the ring was set to a given power setting, the power consumption reported by the meter changed within a few seconds then stayed stable over the course of a minute with variations of only +/- 10W at most. The maximum power measured of 1950 W reasonably agrees with the manual which lists a max 2000 for that ring.

Any "bang-bang" control would have to switch on and off on a timescale of seconds or shorter while making no audible noise.

Without disassembling the cooker I cannot say how the control is done, but how it could be done is with multiple heating coils within the solid plate and only some are used at lower power settings. The control "clicks" between numbers with in-between setting not possible, which would be expected with such a control method.

The oven, on the other hand, has a continuously adjustable control. It uses bang-bang control with a thermostat, which is a common approach for thermostatically-controlled heaters. The oven is aiming to maintain a certain air temperature, by contrast the hob settings are for a certain heat output.

Full numbers. All rounded to 10 W with errors of about +/- 10 W.

0: 300 W (Edit: This is the consumption of the other electrical appliances in the house, so needs subtracting from the other figures to get the power used by just the cooker. I checked during the middle of testing and again at the end and it remained consistent.)

1: 500 W

2: 540 W

3: 610 W

4: 1150 W

5: 1440 W

6: 2250 W

It's not "masturbatory" to explain the terminology used by the domain scientists who are relevant for a question (of which I am one, i.e., a professional geologist with a Ph.D. who studies natural hazards, and specifically earthquakes, as part of their research). If you choose not to believe me in terms of the pervasiveness of these terms and their usage in this context, how about the USGS?

More broadly, there are myriad examples where the specific use of terminology within a branch of science is different than common usage. In this case, the distinction drawn between these two words in the context of the scientific community of interest is useful in terms of describing what we can and cannot do (and very specifically why the community of scientists who study these make the distinction that you are complaining about). Ultimately, the point of this subreddit is for people with specific expertise to communicate that knowledge to interested parties. If you're not interested in learning, you're welcome to not read or comment on future posts in this subreddit.

It seems like I recall seeing an article saying there were organic origin sediments layered onto the impact strata within a few hundred years, nothing like 30k years

I don’t think a persons paper overrules a dictionary. I can’t comment on the chapter you linked as its behind a paywall.

That aside, we all understand what the OP is asking, hence my opinion that a lengthy paragraph explaining how a very niche group of people differentiate between two words that the majority of people (including OP) and the dictionary define as synonyms is masturbatory.

I mean no offense. My comment is not intended to upset you. It is intended as critique. I apologize if it came across in an attacking manner.