BaalChatzaf

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum 1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum", was a time period with more than 8 °C warmer global average temperature than today. The CO2 level was at 550 ppm. This was 55 million years ago. This very warm period lasted 200,000 years and did NOT produce an unstoppable warming. Life flourished subsequent to this period. Eventually the CO2 level and temperature levels went down and several million years of hard ice age and glaciation followed. If the PETM did not turn us into Venus, nothing we are doing now will. Humans do not possess the technology to sterilize this planet. However there is little doubt that we could kill ourselves off if we set our minds to it. But no matter what we do, the Earth will remain an abode of life for the next billion years barring an exceedingly large celestial body colliding with Earth and busting the planet into little pieces.

The meteorologists consider a 30 year running average of temperature, humidity, ghg levels. sea levels cloud cover as a climate data point. One day's weather doth not make climate. 30 years average weather is a climate data point.

On any given day of any given year there is always somewhere, where the weather is "interesting". Weather is NOT climate.

I assume you realize you are talking about weather, not climate.

not true. She provided a good expression of what I was thinking about (ugh!) government, politics and the state. On scientific and mathematical issues she was a great Hollywood script writer.

Science parted company with metaphysics over 100 years go. The only philosopher that physicists mention without spitting is Carl Popper.

which puzzle is that?

if he starts out from a pole he will end up back at the same place. Look at case 2 where he starts at at a non polar point. Unless step 2 of his journey ends at exactly the same point step 1 ended he does not get back because terminates step 2 and a different meridian of longitude form the meridian he was on at step 1.

It was a brief infatuation. I have come see that E.M. is a Crony Capitalist and his management of Tesla Motors is an abomination. It is true that his is brighter than most old line corporate capitalists, but his intellectual glitz cannot hide two things 1. He lusts and longs for government funded projects and 2. His intellectual reach exceeds his intellectual grasp. I regard Captain Bullshit as an entertainment, not the second coming of John Galt.

The original problem was walk a mile south walk a mile west (was it east -- no matter) walk a mile north. The east-west walk is less than the length of line of latitude reached by the southword leg so that the return trip is along a different line of longitude. Let me give an example. The coordinates of the north geographic pole are (90, lon) where lon can be any angle between 0 and 360. The north geographic pole and the south geographic pole are the only two points on the earth sphere that do not have unique coordinate. Now let me widen the problem out Start at a point, walk to the equator in a southerly direction, walk east along the equator the same number of steps that one took to reach the equator then march in a northerly direction the same number of step. Two cases: Case 1 the starting point is the north pole. Assume the first leg is south along the Greenwich meridian, that is to say 0 longitude. This gets us down to (0, 0) on the equator. Walk west the same distance and we get to (0, 90). Now walk north the same distance and we get to (90,90) which is the same point as (90, 0) the north pole. Case 2. The starting point is (x-lat, x-long) where x-lat is greater than 0 and less than 90. Assume x-long = 0 without loss of generality. Now leg 1: (x-lat, 0) to (x1, 0) where x1 < x-lat and greater or equal to 0. Leg 2 (x1,0) (x1, y1) where y1 > 0 but < 360. That means leg2 moved us to a different point with the same latitude. Now leg 3 northward by the same distance. This gets is to (x2, y1) because going north means following a meridian of longitude. Notice that x2 not = x1. The final destination is (x2, y1) which is different from (x-lat, 0). So we do not end up at the same place if we started out from a point that was not the pole. Q.E.D. Forget drawings. The proof is abstract and mathematical. Drawings are crutches for the logically feeble.

That last leg is NOT on the same line of longitude as the first leg. Why? Because the second leg is a traverse along a line of latitude which changes the longitude.

ALL northbound travel is along a line of longitude. Any other path or direction is NOT north or south. Since the last leg of this three part journey is north along a line of longitude different from the first leg the end point must lie on the intersection of the two lines of longitude, hence it is a pole. Given the conditions of the problem it is the north pole.

No. The problem state that the traveler started at a point, went a mile south then a mile west and then a mile north and ended where he started. That means his end point had to be on the intersection of two lines of longitude. Travelling North-South means travelling on a line of longitude. Travelling East West means travelling on a line of latitude parallel to the equator.

Since two legs of the walk, the first and the third are along lines of longitude one must end up where the lines of longitude intersect. Under the conditions of the puzzle that would be the north geographic pole. The three logs are along a line of longitude, a line of latitude and a line of longitude the conditions of the puzzle require that the journey begin and end at a pole.

A disk mounted on a mathematically thin axle with a bearing one point thick at the center.

It is called an ellipse.

North mean North a line of longitude. Longitudes all intersect at exactly two points. The geographic north pole and the geographic south pole. Walking north-west is NOT walking north.

I don't do You Tubies. How about a latitude and a longitude?

What if the stuff in Monsanto's weed killer really did substantially increase the probability of getting non-Hodgkins Lymphoma? If Monsanto did not post a clear warning about the danger wouldn't the company be liable for damages?

Please provide the latitude and longitude of a point other than the North Pole which satisfies the conditions.

The universe has no intentions nor does it "will" any actions. The universe is not a conscious entity. However conscious entities inhabit parts of the universe.

what other places?

A lot of the "good stuff" is considered heresy by the Church of Social Justice. Fortunately most of math and physics is so abstract that the SJW's do not understand it well enough to condemn it, so much of it gets published. However any physics research that casts even a scintilla of doubt on anthropogenic global warming is treated as propaganda bought and paid for by the Evil Oil and Coal Corporations.

North means a 0 degree geometric heading with respect to the poles at wither end of the axis of rotation. This is slightly different from 0 degree heading wrt magnetic north. The magnetic poles wander about.

I think we can agree that the cosmos (during some of its evolution) operates in such a way the living things such as we are and such as exist on earth can and did evolved and can maintain their existence for extended periods of time. Nature does not love or favor us (in a manner of speaking). We and living things like us are here and flourish and also die and are destroyed. The Earth went through at least five major intervals of extinction during which life was vastly reduced and could have been destroyed. A day will come (not soon) that the earth will become hot and dry so that the seas dry up and life perishes. Then the hydrogen in the sun is all fused the Suns gravitation will fuse helium into carbon. This is a hotter process than fusion of hydrogen into helium. The Sun will be 40 percent hotter (higher temperature) than it is now. The seas will evaporate and life will perish (first on the surface, then deeper down). This should be about a billion and a half years in the future. Eventually enough of the "fuel" of the sun will be fused and mass will be lost so the the outer layer of the Sun's plasma will be blown away and the sun will swell up, most likely consume the 4 rocky inner planets Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Only the outer gas giants will remain. Nature does not favor the living in the very long run. The cosmos is expanding and cooling down. Eventually all activity in the cosmos will reach a very cold equilibrium. The cosmos as a domain of life will cease to be. Entropy is increasing, the Cosmos is "dying" (i.e. heading to a cold equilibrium state where nothing much happens). Live long and well while you can.