I think I will be obtaining all my information and forming my world view based only on Fox News from now on where i can be sure to not encounter any pornography.
I own a copy of Matlab, but am moving more and more stuff out of it.
It integrates with command line very poorly (on windows).
The java interface parts look like shit.
The language sucks for real development work.
They want to pay them a fee to retain the future ability to purchase toolboxes, even though I don't want support.
The only thing I am still using is the griddata function because it is better than octaves.
Most of my work is now in python with gnuplot.
You have some pretty interesting and novel theories there, why don't you attempt to get some papers published based on your research.
We might find out how optimal your science is too.
Since your posting on slashdot depends so heavily on english, grammar, logic and computer use it is surprising your work has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional linguists, logicians, philosohers and computer scientists.
Or alternatively,
People who disbelieved the mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change will put this latest piece of evidence in the same mountainous pile of ignored evidence.
People who have taken the somewhat less convenient path of rationally assesing the available scientific evidence will still accept the evidence, and and would have continued to even if the CRU had been found guilty of intentional gross fraud and conspiracy.
Then again CRU could have been one cell in a world wide scientific fraud conspiracy group intent on world domination. But this inquiry and the other one found that they wern't - which makes sense : if scientists had wanted to have power and money they wouldn't have studied science over politics or finance.
Small countries scuttle a deal ? What version of history are you using ?
The DEAL agreed by 117 countries was stabilization at 350ppm.
Then the countries that have the historical responsibility for the problem, are the major current cause of the problem decided that they should also be the future cause of the problem, and couldn't agree to anything that might cause them to show leadership in their own countries.
Are you seriously suggesting countries like Maldives and Tuvalu should have signed up to what would have been a suicide pact for them with the rich nations, just to be cooperative ?
That is not democracy. That is pure self interest.
Democracy is really good for giving the people what they want, which is really successful in peace time.
Unfortunately in this case where a problem is so large we need to get on a planetary war footing, but what they want is willful/plausable ignorance of the subject.
Politicians and the media are forced to supply, untill things get really bad, and then history shows capable leaders will turn up.
I doubt Winston Churchill would have been elected in peace time.
Unfortunately the dynamics of the climate and the masking by aerosols of the magnitude of the forcing mean that if we wait for things to get even worse with a few more years of willful decadent opulent ignorance, then we are commiting to some far worse problems after we start to take drastic action. The magnitude of these problems depends on which model of ocean mixing is accurate and where in those fat error bars the value of aerosol forcing turns out to be. On top of that there is the potential for tipping points that could arrive before or after we start to take action.
Any sensible person with this information would have to say act now.
Better to stick with denial.
I could guess that they are determining temperature by finding the peak wavelength of light using Planks law.
If there was a smaller body in front of the bigger body, the spectrums are added ( or spectrum of big one * (size of bigone - size of small one) + spectrum of small one * size of small one) which might move the peak wavelength slightly.
This would work for both a hotter and colder small body, and tell you size and temperature, given sufficient precision in wavelength and amplitude.
Or we could just have a brief and rather blunt conversation with our friends in the coal, oil and beef industries.
Which is what world leaders are tiptoeing around trying to avoid, pretending terrestrial biofuels were an option, pretending carbon sequestration is an option. All of this stuffing around to avoid some uncomfortable conversation about facts that both the politicians, the people and the companies know are true.
Must we be stupider as a species than our individual parts ?
I live in Australia too.
Fuel tax has not gone directly to roads since the seventies - it goes into general revenue.
Rego + fuel tax does not fund roads.
Local, state and federal gov all subsidise the building and maintaining of roads. Federal receives fuel tax, state receives rego. All three levels of government spend more on roads that they receive from motorists.
Add to that our activities in Iraq, exclusion from the proposed CPRS (Carbon pollution reduction scheme), and the hospital costs to handle all these obese Australians, and most cancers are reduced by an active lifestyle. We also subsidise our car industry to produce technologically backward large cars.
No. Cars are recieving massive subsidies at the expense of cyclists.
Also look around at all the extra infrastructure - traffic lights extra lanes, car parks, parking spaces, garages etc, that are required to support this system.
Bikes cause less wear and tear, require far less road to be built, and require less insurance because they can damage less.
But don't think you are incorrect because of mere facts, take comfort being surrounded by a large percentage of Aussies who share your beliefs, which is why politicians feel the need maintain this system.
Sounds like you fear being run up the back of in your car.
And that is the reason why you don't like slowing for bicycles who fear being run into from behind.
So your solution is for everyone to drive faster.
This will result in ever increasing speeds. Not sensible. Why not slow down and if you can't beat bikes, join them.
Re your assertion that bikes can only ride in bike lanes, besides being ridiculously impractical, is likely incorrect: http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/statelaws.htm
I looked at what I thought would be the most backward states and they all say bikes have equal rights.
This is consistent with the US being a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traffic
I'd gladly pay rego and insurance for my bike. It would be a lot less that that for a car.
And car drivers can pay for the oil wars, hospitals for the obese caused by inactivity, lung disease caused by emissions and most cancers which are reduced by active lifestyles.
And the massive government subsidies funding roads in most countries, the benefits of which I don't think you can argue is equally shared by bike riders, who cause less wear and tear and require less road space.
And pay for the realestate and mainetence costs for all the car lots, car parks, traffic lights etc whose costs are currently socialised for the benefit of car drivers.
I really don't think bike riders are free loading.
because there isn't wind all the time
I think you will find that this part of your reasoning is false.
There is wind all the time and thats why wind could power the whole earth without requiring energy storage.
US is very much like the bad guys in lots of hollywood movies.
e.g. Terminator, Star wars, Independence day
All feature large superior force with evil weapons attacked by human freedom fighters (also known as terrorists lately).
These movies can all be used to incite freedom fighters to fight the evil impersonal overlords that attack without putting their own lives in jeopardy.
There are going to be some confused kids when they see which side is flying the obligatory US flags in some of these movies.
A quick calculation of the pressure required at the top of the inflatable tower to hold the mass of the rest of the tower up...
Force = ma = 800,000,000 kg * 9.8
Pressure = Force / Area
Pressure = 800,000,000 kg * 9.8 / pi * 1 x 1 ( because it is 2 meters across, it has 1 meter radius)
= 2.5 GPa
Thats a lot of pressure, and with such I tall cylinder of air the pressure at the bottom would be even greater.
Also heavy vehicles use less fuel on cement because they have to push a wave of asphalt in front of the wheels on asphalt which deforms more than cement.
Steel is quite good to recycle.
It takes about 25 gigajoules of energy per tonne to make steel, but if you recycle it you can get back 18 gigajoules per tonne.
In carbon emissions it takes 2 tonnes of CO2 to a tonne and you get back about 1.5 tonnes.
If most of the boat is steel that makes 9,000 tonnes of steel wasted , 163 petajoules of energy wasted or 13500 tonnes of CO2 emitted for an artificial reef.
The energy is around the same required to run a 1 GW power station for almost a day.
Wow you are a unique specimen, I love discovering people with unique value systems.
Your not being afraid of things unless they threaten the extinction of your species is probably unique in the animal kingdom. It requires a high level of consciousness to distinguish whether the threat is in fact a threat to the species or just to your self. It also requires a level of altruism not observed before in even the most social of insects.
You don't fear car accidents, AIDS, sharks or any other threat that doesn't threaten the species.
I suggest that this value system can be proved to be an evolutionary dead end for two reasons:
1) Without knowing the fate of the rest of the race, the last member will still not recognise the threat to the species.
2) Inheritance of this value system is unlikely because of the lack of fear individuals possess almost certainly will result in their deaths.
When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem - Not exactly consistent with former "survival of race is all that matters" position. This is more consistent with a position of : I can't be bothered implementing the tiny changes to my lifestyle necessary to avoid dangerous climate change , so I will construct irrational value systems in order to justify my position.
Reflecting more sun from the top of the atmosphere while increasing greenhouse gasses will place us in yet another unknown region of the earths dynamics.
It might work in controlling temperature - for some small part of the earth - if you get it right, but this is a multi variable system, people might not like your attempts to control temperature if rainfall patterns are altered, winds and currents change, and we get less sunlight to run solar and wind power and grow crops.
We already have one uncontrolled multi decade experiment running, lets start another. I'm quite certain there are no precedents that would indicate that rapidly constructed fixes to problems cause any more problems than the original one.
Denialists - I didn't say who was a denialist besides those who chose to pick isolated data sets that agree with their world view to prove their point.
Genuine skeptics would have been interested in the Antarctic cooling data too
But point taken It is probably not nice to feel you are being called silly names.
Have a read of some of the sites out there, I think the term is quite fitting, besides what else could you call them. It's getting pretty late in the game, the stakes are getting higher than they have ever been, there is so much evidence about global warming, that it's going to become increasingly difficult be politically correct by giving any respect to irrational people who cannot follow a logical argument.
The start of the sentence : "I think" means I don't have any data - just a guess. Probably shouldn't publish a paper with just that sentence in it should I ?
The Antarctic as a whole is not cooling, but warming with the rest of the world, some data from some places showed it was cooling and of course this was expounded by denialists as proof that warming wasn't global.
The Antarctic's ice is melting much less than the arctic because the antarctic gets a lot of it's coldness from it's altitude (mountains etc), whereas the arctic is just floating ice, and is also adjacent to more land and less water - water stabilises temperature - so this makes the arctic more sensitive to temperature changes. But the edge bits are melting.
I think the ice shelves breaking is more likely to be caused by sea level rise though. Where the sea level cracks the ice off from the land. Which shows the non linear nature of ice melting. We don't just get ice melting linearly with temperature increases, we can get whole chunks breaking off and floating away
Imagine a large thin sheet of ice floating on water that has formed over thousands of years. The ice has formed slowly from immense glacial flows and some snow falling on top, the forces that constrain it are the floatation on the water and the force of gravity, which have been fairly constant during the formation, forcing the ice shelf to form at an elevation where gravity balances it's floatation force.
Suddenly (in ice shelf formation time scales) the sea level changes slightly. The two forces are out of balance, and the ice is bearing load. It breaks.
I made all the above up, have no specific knowledge of ice sheets but hope that it refutes your claim that it is cretinous to think CO2 could cause ice sheets to crack.
If you RTFA it says the ice shelf was mapped in the 1930s and has been constant size until very recently. We also know bits (this big) don't break off every now and then, where every now and then is less than the age of the ice currently in the shelf (which has been measured to be thousands of years old). Otherwise it would have already broken off.
I have to ask why you have not self imposed the carbon tax ?
Especially since you are so sentient and don't need the government to tell you what to do, and clearly agree with paying for your emissions.
It is relatively easy to buy genuine carbon offsets (not tree planting).
Slashdot Mirror
I think I will be obtaining all my information and forming my world view based only on Fox News from now on where i can be sure to not encounter any pornography.
I own a copy of Matlab, but am moving more and more stuff out of it.
It integrates with command line very poorly (on windows).
The java interface parts look like shit.
The language sucks for real development work.
They want to pay them a fee to retain the future ability to purchase toolboxes, even though I don't want support.
The only thing I am still using is the griddata function because it is better than octaves.
Most of my work is now in python with gnuplot.
You have some pretty interesting and novel theories there, why don't you attempt to get some papers published based on your research.
We might find out how optimal your science is too.
That's an axe to the groin there
Since your posting on slashdot depends so heavily on english, grammar, logic and computer use it is surprising your work has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional linguists, logicians, philosohers and computer scientists.
Or alternatively,
People who disbelieved the mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change will put this latest piece of evidence in the same mountainous pile of ignored evidence.
People who have taken the somewhat less convenient path of rationally assesing the available scientific evidence will still accept the evidence, and and would have continued to even if the CRU had been found guilty of intentional gross fraud and conspiracy.
Then again CRU could have been one cell in a world wide scientific fraud conspiracy group intent on world domination. But this inquiry and the other one found that they wern't - which makes sense : if scientists had wanted to have power and money they wouldn't have studied science over politics or finance.
Small countries scuttle a deal ? What version of history are you using ?
The DEAL agreed by 117 countries was stabilization at 350ppm.
Then the countries that have the historical responsibility for the problem, are the major current cause of the problem decided that they should also be the future cause of the problem, and couldn't agree to anything that might cause them to show leadership in their own countries.
Are you seriously suggesting countries like Maldives and Tuvalu should have signed up to what would have been a suicide pact for them with the rich nations, just to be cooperative ? That is not democracy. That is pure self interest.
Democracy is really good for giving the people what they want, which is really successful in peace time.
Unfortunately in this case where a problem is so large we need to get on a planetary war footing, but what they want is willful/plausable ignorance of the subject.
Politicians and the media are forced to supply, untill things get really bad, and then history shows capable leaders will turn up.
I doubt Winston Churchill would have been elected in peace time.
Unfortunately the dynamics of the climate and the masking by aerosols of the magnitude of the forcing mean that if we wait for things to get even worse with a few more years of willful decadent opulent ignorance, then we are commiting to some far worse problems after we start to take drastic action. The magnitude of these problems depends on which model of ocean mixing is accurate and where in those fat error bars the value of aerosol forcing turns out to be. On top of that there is the potential for tipping points that could arrive before or after we start to take action.
Any sensible person with this information would have to say act now.
Better to stick with denial.
I could guess that they are determining temperature by finding the peak wavelength of light using Planks law.
If there was a smaller body in front of the bigger body, the spectrums are added ( or spectrum of big one * (size of bigone - size of small one) + spectrum of small one * size of small one) which might move the peak wavelength slightly. This would work for both a hotter and colder small body, and tell you size and temperature, given sufficient precision in wavelength and amplitude.
Or we could just have a brief and rather blunt conversation with our friends in the coal, oil and beef industries.
Which is what world leaders are tiptoeing around trying to avoid, pretending terrestrial biofuels were an option, pretending carbon sequestration is an option. All of this stuffing around to avoid some uncomfortable conversation about facts that both the politicians, the people and the companies know are true.
Must we be stupider as a species than our individual parts ?
Yeah - idiots , imagine if a family bought TWO cars.
I live in Australia too.
Fuel tax has not gone directly to roads since the seventies - it goes into general revenue.
Rego + fuel tax does not fund roads.
Local, state and federal gov all subsidise the building and maintaining of roads. Federal receives fuel tax, state receives rego. All three levels of government spend more on roads that they receive from motorists.
Add to that our activities in Iraq, exclusion from the proposed CPRS (Carbon pollution reduction scheme), and the hospital costs to handle all these obese Australians, and most cancers are reduced by an active lifestyle.
We also subsidise our car industry to produce technologically backward large cars.
No. Cars are recieving massive subsidies at the expense of cyclists.
Also look around at all the extra infrastructure - traffic lights extra lanes, car parks, parking spaces, garages etc, that are required to support this system.
Bikes cause less wear and tear, require far less road to be built, and require less insurance because they can damage less.
But don't think you are incorrect because of mere facts, take comfort being surrounded by a large percentage of Aussies who share your beliefs, which is why politicians feel the need maintain this system.
Sounds like you fear being run up the back of in your car. :
And that is the reason why you don't like slowing for bicycles who fear being run into from behind.
So your solution is for everyone to drive faster.
This will result in ever increasing speeds. Not sensible. Why not slow down and if you can't beat bikes, join them.
Re your assertion that bikes can only ride in bike lanes, besides being ridiculously impractical, is likely incorrect
http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/statelaws.htm
I looked at what I thought would be the most backward states and they all say bikes have equal rights.
This is consistent with the US being a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traffic
I'd gladly pay rego and insurance for my bike. It would be a lot less that that for a car.
And car drivers can pay for the oil wars, hospitals for the obese caused by inactivity, lung disease caused by emissions and most cancers which are reduced by active lifestyles.
And the massive government subsidies funding roads in most countries, the benefits of which I don't think you can argue is equally shared by bike riders, who cause less wear and tear and require less road space.
And pay for the realestate and mainetence costs for all the car lots, car parks, traffic lights etc whose costs are currently socialised for the benefit of car drivers.
I really don't think bike riders are free loading.
because there isn't wind all the time
I think you will find that this part of your reasoning is false.
There is wind all the time and thats why wind could power the whole earth without requiring energy storage.
US is very much like the bad guys in lots of hollywood movies.
e.g. Terminator, Star wars, Independence day
All feature large superior force with evil weapons attacked by human freedom fighters (also known as terrorists lately).
These movies can all be used to incite freedom fighters to fight the evil impersonal overlords that attack without putting their own lives in jeopardy.
There are going to be some confused kids when they see which side is flying the obligatory US flags in some of these movies.
A quick calculation of the pressure required at the top of the inflatable tower to hold the mass of the rest of the tower up ...
Force = ma = 800,000,000 kg * 9.8
Pressure = Force / Area
Pressure = 800,000,000 kg * 9.8 / pi * 1 x 1 ( because it is 2 meters across, it has 1 meter radius)
= 2.5 GPa
Thats a lot of pressure, and with such I tall cylinder of air the pressure at the bottom would be even greater.
Also heavy vehicles use less fuel on cement because they have to push a wave of asphalt in front of the wheels on asphalt which deforms more than cement.
Steel is quite good to recycle.
It takes about 25 gigajoules of energy per tonne to make steel, but if you recycle it you can get back 18 gigajoules per tonne.
In carbon emissions it takes 2 tonnes of CO2 to a tonne and you get back about 1.5 tonnes.
If most of the boat is steel that makes 9,000 tonnes of steel wasted , 163 petajoules of energy wasted or 13500 tonnes of CO2 emitted for an artificial reef.
The energy is around the same required to run a 1 GW power station for almost a day.
Your not being afraid of things unless they threaten the extinction of your species is probably unique in the animal kingdom. It requires a high level of consciousness to distinguish whether the threat is in fact a threat to the species or just to your self. It also requires a level of altruism not observed before in even the most social of insects.
You don't fear car accidents, AIDS, sharks or any other threat that doesn't threaten the species.
I suggest that this value system can be proved to be an evolutionary dead end for two reasons
1) Without knowing the fate of the rest of the race, the last member will still not recognise the threat to the species.
2) Inheritance of this value system is unlikely because of the lack of fear individuals possess almost certainly will result in their deaths.
When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem - Not exactly consistent with former "survival of race is all that matters" position. This is more consistent with a position of : I can't be bothered implementing the tiny changes to my lifestyle necessary to avoid dangerous climate change , so I will construct irrational value systems in order to justify my position.
This is not a reversal of climate change.
Reflecting more sun from the top of the atmosphere while increasing greenhouse gasses will place us in yet another unknown region of the earths dynamics.
It might work in controlling temperature - for some small part of the earth - if you get it right, but this is a multi variable system, people might not like your attempts to control temperature if rainfall patterns are altered, winds and currents change, and we get less sunlight to run solar and wind power and grow crops.
We already have one uncontrolled multi decade experiment running, lets start another. I'm quite certain there are no precedents that would indicate that rapidly constructed fixes to problems cause any more problems than the original one.
Denialists - I didn't say who was a denialist besides those who chose to pick isolated data sets that agree with their world view to prove their point.
Genuine skeptics would have been interested in the Antarctic cooling data too
But point taken It is probably not nice to feel you are being called silly names.
Have a read of some of the sites out there, I think the term is quite fitting, besides what else could you call them. It's getting pretty late in the game, the stakes are getting higher than they have ever been, there is so much evidence about global warming, that it's going to become increasingly difficult be politically correct by giving any respect to irrational people who cannot follow a logical argument.
The start of the sentence : "I think" means I don't have any data - just a guess. Probably shouldn't publish a paper with just that sentence in it should I ?
The Antarctic as a whole is not cooling, but warming with the rest of the world, some data from some places showed it was cooling and of course this was expounded by denialists as proof that warming wasn't global.
see : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue
The Antarctic's ice is melting much less than the arctic because the antarctic gets a lot of it's coldness from it's altitude (mountains etc), whereas the arctic is just floating ice, and is also adjacent to more land and less water - water stabilises temperature - so this makes the arctic more sensitive to temperature changes. But the edge bits are melting.
I think the ice shelves breaking is more likely to be caused by sea level rise though. Where the sea level cracks the ice off from the land. Which shows the non linear nature of ice melting. We don't just get ice melting linearly with temperature increases, we can get whole chunks breaking off and floating away
Imagine a large thin sheet of ice floating on water that has formed over thousands of years. The ice has formed slowly from immense glacial flows and some snow falling on top, the forces that constrain it are the floatation on the water and the force of gravity, which have been fairly constant during the formation, forcing the ice shelf to form at an elevation where gravity balances it's floatation force.
Suddenly (in ice shelf formation time scales) the sea level changes slightly. The two forces are out of balance, and the ice is bearing load. It breaks.
I made all the above up, have no specific knowledge of ice sheets but hope that it refutes your claim that it is cretinous to think CO2 could cause ice sheets to crack.
CO2 has caused sea level rise which has been accelerating lately : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
The warming reversed meme can be discarded by your reading this : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/
If you RTFA it says the ice shelf was mapped in the 1930s and has been constant size until very recently. We also know bits (this big) don't break off every now and then, where every now and then is less than the age of the ice currently in the shelf (which has been measured to be thousands of years old). Otherwise it would have already broken off.
I have to ask why you have not self imposed the carbon tax ?
Especially since you are so sentient and don't need the government to tell you what to do, and clearly agree with paying for your emissions.
It is relatively easy to buy genuine carbon offsets (not tree planting).
Is'nt this exactly what modern operating systems do ?
...
After the first read, the files are cached in memory, and unless they are pushed out of the cache, will be there next time you compile