Miscellaneous desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 30

B unit, or...?

In english, what would you call a military unit who (in peacetime!) take on the rôle of the enemy, to provide other units with a live "enemy" to train with/against? This unit could be designed to carry out surveillance, tracking, attacks, etc etc, all in order to provide realism to military exercises. Riggwelter (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During war games, there are usually a Red Army and a Blue Army, one representing "us", and one "them". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the later stages of the Cold War, it was sometimes considered needlessly provocative for US or NATO trainers (the Blue Team or Force) to call the adversary force (representing the Communist bloc) red, so it became, I think, the Orange Team or Force. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not pinko? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

OPFOR, or Opposing force. -Arch dude (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misremembering having seen a movie

Is there a term for this? False memory or something? When Chinatown came out in 1974, I, like millions of others, went to see it at the movies. It's been on TV squillions of times since; I always managed to miss it, but always intended to see it again, as I rather enjoyed it. I came across a DVD the other day, and today I settled back to watch it again and see how much I remembered. How much did I remember? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not a single scene. My memory is not perfect, but I'm sure I'd have remembered some bits of dialogue, the basic gist of the story, etc. But no. It seems I was watching it for the very first time today, and my memory of having seen it at the movies was made up. What's this called? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetfullness.86.200.6.42 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

No, I'd say it's the opposite of forgetfulness - not the "memory" opposite, but the "thinking I had a memory of it when I really didn't" opposite. I'm now convinced I never saw it at all in 1974, I just always believed I did. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it could still be forgetfulness on your part, Jack. You say that the film was so unfamiliar to you when you watched it the other day that you're now convinced you never saw it in 1974. But maybe you did see it back then and you really have forgotten everything about it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grant that's technically possible, Richard. But my heart and my gut and my head tell me it's not the case. I have a memory for all sorts of little details (bits of dialogue, the look/feel of certain scenes, some background music ...) that many people miss (and equally, I sometimes miss some really obvious things). If I had really seen it and forgotten everything about it - and I mean everything - that would be a first for me. I believe it's extremely unlikely I saw it and forgot it totally. It's much more likely that, somehow, I falsely got it into my head that I saw it back then. Both scenarios are somewhat disturbing, but if I have to choose between them, I choose the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many confabulations on your false memory, Jack! --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Never saw it at all" - is it possible you saw a different film and over time got the two confused? In the film you thought you saw, was Jack Nicholson in it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, I suppose. He's not one of my favourite actors, but he has a very intense presence, he inhabits every role completely, and each performance is distinguishable from every other. I'm usually very good with remembering films: I know exactly which ones I've seen, and which ones I haven't. This is first time I've ever "remembered" seeing a film I haven't actually seen - as far as I can remember. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always like that with Jackie Chan films. I'll see a title in the TV listings and go wild about it, remembering the film and how good it was, right down to specific dialogue. Then, when I watch it, it's a totally different film from what I remember. Or maybe it just is a totally different film. I can never be sure. I once sat down about an hour before one of his films came on, and in my excitement practically told the entire story to my poor ex-wife, who kept telling me not to tell her as she was looking forward to it and didn't want me to ruin it for her. She enjoyed the film immensely, though, because it was completely different. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do this a lot with music. Something new will come on the radio and I'll turn to my colleague and say "what's this a cover of? I've heard it before..." Turns out it's brand new... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last is basically déjà vu. - Jmabel | Talk 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or déja entendu in this case. My experience seems to be a case of confabulation (tks to Tagishsimon). Whenever I've read or heard a reference to Chinatown, the only images that come up are (a) the movie poster and (b) a "memory" of a single scene with a sinister-looking person peering out of a shop towards a narrowish street in a stereotypical bustling Chinatown, in broad daylight. In fact, there was no such scene. The only scenes in the actual Chinatown part of LA were at night, and the street was abnormally wide and fairly quiet. If asked about the storyline, I would have been completely stumped. I certainly remembered nothing about the unusual goings-on in Faye Dunaway's family (I won't reveal the details, for those who, like me until yesterday, haven't seen it) - something I would not forget. It never occurred to me that, because I wasn't remembering anything of the story line, maybe I'd never seen it. I was so totally convinced I had, that I never stopped to question my memory. There you go. Now I'm left wondering what could have caused me to think I'd seen it. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this whole thread sounds very familiar to me. Didn´t we all write exactly the same in 1974? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that when I saw the title, but after I read the thread I realised I probably hadn't read it after all. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the phenomenon known as jamais vu? That's the phrase I'd use, though I'm not sure this is the technically accurate use of the term. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to apply to cases where your intellect tells you must have seen/experienced the thing in question, but you have no memory of it. Mine was exactly the opposite experience. I was convinced I'd seen the movie - although I had only one vague "memory" of it - but in truth I hadn't. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had you really seen a movie with a similar name? For example, The China Syndrome was out at about the same time as Chinatown. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you regard 5 years as "about the same time". Apart from the word China, and both being made in and set in the USA, those two movies have nothing in common. I really did see The China Syndrome at the movies, and about 3 times on TV. I know, because I can tell you the story, the names of the main actors, the names of some of the characters, etc., without looking them up. Apart from it starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway and being directed by Roman Polanski, that was not true of Chinatown until I saw it yesterday. I didn't even know John Huston was in it. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that if you saw the Nicholson "China Syndrome" you should recognize the scene of the bad guy cutting Nicholson's nose, and the scene of the girl being shot and her head hitting the horn. I recently bought a copy of a picture book I had not seen since I was 5 and I recognized various scenes and passages in it. You might be expected to do better recognizing scenes from a movie you saw at an older age. Edison (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But did you mean Chinatown? That scene was not in The China Syndrome. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confabulation, as someone mentioned above, is my vote. --Masamage ♫ 07:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Story

2 Questions - Did George Chakiris who won an Oscar for his portrayal of Bernardo in this wonderful film use (and have recorded onto the soundtrack) his own singing voice or was it over-recorded as with the characters of Maria, Anita and Tony? And did George Chakiris ever marry (in private life)? Can't find any background information anywhere else. Thanks. 92.20.197.29 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the liner notes, he did his own singing. His resume indicates he's always been both a song and dance man. As to his private life, apparently he likes to keep it private. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Base. Thanks - and Respect for George's privacy. 92.20.197.29 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling Puzzle

Resolved

See here. // BL \\ (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I have been trying to solve this for a long time but I am not able to..please help me with this puzzle.

The diagram shows a 4 x 5 grid with some filled cells. Find the numbers in the remaining cells according to the following rules: a) Each number can only take values from 1 to 5. There are 4 such full sets(1-5). b) Sum of each row is same. c) Sum of each column is same. d) Adjacent numbers cannot be the same.

-	-	-	1	5
-	-	-	-	1
2	4	-	-	-
4	-	-	-	-

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.132.208 (talk • contribs)

This seems like a non-square variant of Magic square. There are many known techniques for solving them. Nimur (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Nimur, I'm also having a hard time with this one and can't seem to find any help. Links? -hydnjo (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! Duplicate posting there. -hydnjo (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, resolved there. -hydnjo (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Does this make any sense? How could the columns all sum the same if each may have a different set of 4 numbers between 1-5?~~ DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Response moved to mathematics desk.) -- Tcncv (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK's GRE or GMAT

Is there a British equivalent of the GRE or the GMAT? Do Grad student in the UK only have the grades from their university?--Quest09 (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what GRE or GMAT are. In the UK once you graduate you'll get a degree. This will be either a first, second (upper) aka 2:1, second (lower) aka 2:2, or a third. These indicate your general position & how well you did - first being best, third indicating at least you passed the exams. If you want to you can get a transcript of your course/exam marks from the university but I don't think anyone actually requires it & most don't bother. AllanHainey (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Graduate Record Examination is the standardized test which most post-graduate schools require for all applicants. GMAT is a test designed for students who intend to pursue post-graduate business school (e.g. an MBA degree). Glancing at some admissions requirements for Oxford, it does not appear that any standardized-tests are required for general graduate admission. Nimur (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entry to an undergraduate education for the purposes of attaining a first degree in the UK is generally contingent upon "A Level" results - subject-based examinations taken at the end of the last couple of years at school. Individuals will typically sit from 2-4 such exams, which are marked on a scale of A to F, where F=fail (or more recently, U=Ungraded, i.e. failed). Some undergraduate universities/courses also interview candidates. Advancement to further degrees is normally contingent on the results of the first degree, often together with interviews. This being academia, there are a myriad variations on the theme, but that's the base melody. Which is a long way around saying, no, no GRE or GMAT equivalent in the UK. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No GRE in Canada either. I thought it was just an American thing. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any Canadian schools use it for admission, but there are places you can take the GRE in Canada, maybe just for applications to US schools. TastyCakes (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A levels are a requirement of English universities. Scottish universities will require Highers, but will typically accept A levels too.

Sewn up Suit pockets?

I'm not sure why suit jacket external pockets are sewn up when you first buy them or see them in the shop. When I was younger I was told it was to stop the IRA from putting incendiaries in the pockets but I've now bought a few suits direct from the U.S.A. & they're pockets are similarly sewn up. So I reckon the IRA story is nonsense. Does anyone know the real reason? AllanHainey (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real answer is much more boring: it keeps the pockets shut and keeps the line of the suit nice while it's in the store (and after you've bought it and are wearing it, if you're so inclined). FiggyBee (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its also so that people trying on a suit in a shop cant put there hands in the pockets, which could adjust the shape slightly and make the suit look less appealing Chaosandwalls (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Figgy and Chas are quite correct but as a Savile Row trained tailor I have to add that those suits are factory made and do not need to be stitched up if they have been made correctly. It annoys me intensely to examine a suit in a high street store that is bedecked with white stitching across the shoulders and the sleeve seams and the pocket mouths only to be told by the 18 year old sales person that these are the marks of quality that signify the "personal and bespoke fit of the garment". What a load of tosh. The way I was taught was simply to baste (loosely stitch) the sleeve , collar, lapel. etc., into the frame of the garment and then to offer a first, second, and yes, even a third try-on to the customer to ensure an eventual "bespoke" fit. Any white stitching (not requested at the time of ordering is totally unnecessary). Stitches alone do NOT even begin to approach that - though they do add "value" to the ignorant. 92.8.102.140 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question was asked a while back (9-12 months?), so you might want to do a search to get more answers. Dismas|^(talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember asking someone this question when I started wearing suits, and being told that it was intended to indicate you were buying a new suit and not one that had been previously sold/worn. I'm not sure that's entirely convincing, and I can't remember who it was, but it's been what I've told myself since then. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montebello

Commons-page descriptions say these are in "Montebello (RN), Italy". Would that be Montebello della Battaglia or somewhere we don't disambiguate at Montebello? I see that it-wiki uses these at it:Torriana; geographically, that's nowhere near Montebello della Battaglia.

Hoping to sort this out for Commons descriptions, categorization, etc.

If someone can translate this question into Italian & see if we can get anything useful out of the it-wiki folk, great. I can read Italian, but can't write it decently. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Montebello where the pictures were taken appears to be this one: 43°58′14″N 12°22′04″E / 43.9706°N 12.3677°E. It's a bit southwest of Torriana, but I guess we don't have an article about it. (By the way, RN is the abbreviation for the Province of Rimini—see the infobox.) Deor (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll add that other Montebello to our Montebello disambiguation page. - Jmabel | Talk 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Punta Cana use Celsius or Fahrenheit?

Does Punta Cana use Celsius or Fahrenheit? I need to know this to determine whether the temperatures should be Celsius or Fahrenheit. --CalcDude (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't everywhere use celsius except the US? Do they use metric? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we use both because some people still can't get their heads round Celsius. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Fahrenheit in the UK has sharply decreased though - I doubt it'll last another generation. SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominican Republic, like most countries outside of the United States, uses the Celcius scale for temperature. --Thomprod (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought common sense is all you need to determine which scale is used. I mean a temperature of 28 is hardly likely to be Fahrenheit in the Caribbean, not is 75 degrees likely to be Celsius. 86.4.181.14 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three nations have not officially adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement: Liberia, Burma and the United States so there (in the Dominican Republic) it would be Celcius. hydnjo (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belize is also Fahrenheit. Dragons flight (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit is a finer scale. It has 180 points between melting and boiling, instead of just 100. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both scales have infinite points between melting and boiling. Quest09 (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integer points. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why obsess about integers? Do we concern ourselves with integer numbers of dollars? Integer numbers of feet? Is the CGS system better than MKS because centimeters are smaller than meters? Look at it the another way - for high temperatures, Fahrenheit requires you (on average) to write down more digits than centigrade. It's a silly argument! Fahrenheit is a ridiculous system because the most obvious and useful zero point is the freezing point of water. Instead, the zero point is the lowest temperature some guy happened to manage to get in his lab using salt and ice sometime in the 18th century and the "100 point" is an inaccurately measured human body temperature (which is nothing like a constant anyway). Of all of the units we use for all sorts of things - Fahrenheit is one of the most stupid. (Except, perhaps for the ones in List of humorous units of measurement, which are at least funny as well as stupid.)SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a finer gradient than Celsius. The argument for the metric system is that everything is scalable by 10s and 1/10ths. There is no such need in temperature readings. The melting and boiling points of water are just as capricious and arbitrary as anything else - including how the meter was defined, as a fraction of the distance from the equator to the north pole. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could measure in micro-Kelvin if you're that bothered about fine scales. I wouldn't say melting and boiling points are that capricious. The number of times I've boiled water or wanted to know if it's freezing outside is far greater than the number of times I've needed to know the distance to the North Pole.

Incidentally, I know we've had the debate over which is better before on the ref desk, though I can't find it in the archives. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've had the metric/non-metric debate before. I don't know if we've ever specifically discussed temperature. Since as Baseball Bugs mentioned, we don't tend to need larger and smaller units for temperature the issue of converting between different size units doesn't usually arise. (Actually we don't even have any for Fahrenheit AFAIK) However as all normal derived units are defined based on Kelvin which of course when you are talking about a temperature difference rather then an absolute temperature is the same thing as Celsius, using Fahrenheit still does have issues that apply to the rest of the non metric units. I agree with SB, while it's true the boiling point and freezing point of water at roughly sea level earth atmospheric pressure can be considered arbitrary, for us humans on earth it makes a lot of sense given how often we encounter and use water and how important water is. Fahrenheit is one of the most bizarre systems in that regard. The only thing it has going for it is the human body temperature is close to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Of course if you don't want something arbitrary you can use Kelvin or microKelvin (the interval is arbitrary but I don't see any way around that) or even Rankine if you really want. I have to agree that as someone who uses Celsius all the time, I've never seen the bigger interval as a big problem. When you're talking about weather, it's rare you're going to care about that level of precision. The difference between 30 degrees Celsius and 29 or 3 degrees and 2 is not enough that I feel there's often any need for greater precision in general conversation. Indeed it seems to be people often just talk about Fahrenheit in the 5s, e.g. 90 degrees or 95 degrees which IMHO is sometimes too inprecise. When you're talking about human body temperature, in most cases 101 or 102 degrees is too big a difference, you need the decimal point, but a single celsius decimal point is fine too. So again, the fact that the interval is bigger doesn't seem a big issue to me. Can Baseball Bugs or someone else give me an example of when they feel the Fahrenheit interval is enough but with Celsius you need an extra decimal point? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Edit: I would note our article on Fahrenheit does say "Resistance to the Celsius system was partly due to the larger size of each degree Celsius, resulting in the need for fractions, where integral Fahrenheit degrees were adequate for much technical work. The lower zero point in the Fahrenheit system reduced the number of negative signs when measurements such as weather data were averaged" from a 1919 ref. I can't image this is still much of an issue however as I doubt Fahrenheit without an integral is sufficient for much technical work nowadays. Of course most of it will be computerised anyway. Ironically in the same vein it seems likely people using the old data nowadays would often be glad to have Celsius with the decimal point then Fahrenheit without, presuming the instruments really had that level of precision Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I remember derogatory comments about Fahrenheit's armpits as a basis for a unit. Maybe it's just déjà vu. I'd never heard of the Rankine before, but I think I'll throw my hat in the ring for the electron-volt. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Fahrenheit has a song about it.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! The Internet is a VAST place - what are the odds that your statement is true? Roughly zero degrees centigrade. SteveBaker (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once had a temp job with a distributor of camping gear. Overheard: "A customer is calling to say his new sleeping bag is marked both –40°F and —40°C; which is it?!" —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Kennedy

During the funeral activities of Ted Kennedy, who was the man escorting Vicki Kennedy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.240.146 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy with the beard? That would have been her son, Curran Raclin. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.240.146 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When will Global Warming end?

and how will I know it is over? Richard (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow. There will be a parade. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the sun goes supernova and consumes the earth. After that, things will start to cool down. That's expected to be a few billion years in the future, so you might miss it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serially though, you should read our global warming article. It's quite comprehensive. -hydnjo (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may also want to check out http://www.350.org/. They are clearly very POV- and agenda-driven, but their whole spiel is that once CO₂ levels are below 350 ppm, we can avoid global warming.
  - As our article points out, global warming is likely to continue beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this. Predicting its endpoint is difficult because computer models cannot predict so far into the future, but in the more pessimistic scenarios, positive feedback loops mean it could go on for hundreds of years. Marco polo (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Until the next Ice Age. That will slow it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You mean until the next glacial period within the current ice age. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Good point. Thanks for crystalizing that. Ironically, by then they'll probably have the wooly mammoth cloned, and when the glacial period hits, they'll be saying, "Hang onto your tusks, folks! Here we go again!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no guarantee that we'll have another ice age until we fix the problem. Ice ages happen for complicated and rather subtle reasons that are magnified by feedback effects. For example: When there is a little more snow and ice around for some subtle reason, that reflects away a little more sunlight than usual, resulting in the earth getting a little cooler - resulting in more snow and ice - more cooling and so on). However, when we stick this huge amount of CO2 into the upper atmosphere, that could easily be enough to prevent that initial subtle trigger from happening. (eg If no snow whatever falls anywhere - then even a fairly large random decrease in temperature might not be enough to cause any to fall...hence no positive feedback...hence no ice-age.) In fact, the very opposite feedback effects are a lot to do with the problems we're about to have: The ice caps and glaciers and permafrost is melting - that decreases the albedo of the planet - resulting in more sunlight being absorbed - resulting in even less ice & snow to reflect the sunlight. We certainly can't say "Well, there's going to be another ice age in the few thousand years - at least THAT will fix the problem."...that's not necessarily going to be the case. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know when it'll end because we don't have any kind of a solid, practical, implementable plan for cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...nor any plan for not adding any more CO2...nor any plan for reducing the rate at which we add more...nor any plan for not increasing the rate at which we're adding it...nor even any plan for not dramatically increasing the rate at which we add more. <sigh> When we work our way down the list of things we don't have plans for, to the point where we could actually have a workable plan that would result in the amount of CO2 dropping - then we might be able to answer that part of your question!

As for how we'd know it was over, that's a lot simpler. When the average global temperature gets back down to where it "should" be - perhaps a couple of degrees below where it is today - then it's over. As others have pointed out, barring some major miracle, that's not going to happen during our lives - nor those of our children - so I don't expect this to be an important practical question for the next 100 years at least.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One theory is that global warming will actually trigger the next Ice Age. There are benefits to global warming though - the prospect of Yankee Stadium being under water is one of them. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can one say when global warming will end when we do not know when it began? Googlemeister (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually fairly warm in the middle ages and then chilled down gradually over a few centuries. You could use 1816 as your base line. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 August 30

Contents