Did ANYONE actually read the article where the very next paragraph says:
Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease
Global Warming deniers think that any variation of temperature other than year after year increases in temperature is proof that Global Warming is a hoax. They fail to see the larger picture.
How are you certain that the global warming models are correct when the computer models cannot predict the weather in a week with any accuracy?
...perhaps the fact that 2008 virtually wiped out any direct evidence for global warming should give us pause to reflect that we really don't understand how global climate works and that a multi-trillion dollar plan to combat it might help, hurt, or, most likely, do nothing but eat up so much tax money that if and when we finally do know what to do we will no longer be able to afford it.
And that is a very inconvenient truth.
But you don't understand. We need an excuse to make the state more powerful!
Mod parent up.. The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Which, conveniently, lets just about any type of weather be attributed to global warming (or is that climate change?)
Which is exactly what is happening anyway. Every big storm or unusual meteorological event these days is automatically assumed to be yet another affect of global climate change. According to some, it's even causing forest fires and earthquakes.
NPR has a whole series where they go to some part of the world each week, and talk about how climate change is affecting the people there in some way or another, and how the people are coping (or are doomed).
What is also not mentioned in the NPR reports is that we are actually stopping a lot of carbon emissions. Consider a forest fire - in days past you could conceivably have a fire that burned across the entire North American continent without being stopped.
There is also volcanoes which expel enormous amounts of carbon.
2008 may be the coldest year of the 21st century, but every other 21st century year sits at the top of the list of warmest years on record. Currently seven out of the top eight spots on the list of warmest years on record are occupied by one of the last seven years. Also from the BBC article:
Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.
I hate to point out the obvious, but global warming models do not predict a year over year increase in temperature. Again, from the article:
"The principal thing is to look at the long-term trend," said Dr Kennedy.
"2008 will still be significantly above the long-term average. There's been a strong upward trend in the last few decades, and that's the thing to focus on."
What I do not understand is why we should even believe these computer models. We cannot even calculate the weather in the next week with our computer models. How do you expect a skeptic like me to believe that this model is accurate when you are talking about a system that has millions of variables?
there must be a lot of planetary heat being stored away somewhere
That's why we use ice in our cooler chests: when they melt they absorb a lot of heat, and the ice cold runoff keeps the things around them cooler than they would otherwise be. But just because the ice is melting but your beer is cold you can't conclude that the sun has cooled off.
This doesn't seem to adhere to the law of conservation of energy.
When it is hotter, the ice in your cooler melts faster, but the beer does not get colder.
I think that the energy problem is not going to be solved without some unidentified technology. To me it seems that continuing on with oil AND trying to "go green" using the current green technologies is simply not going to work. Current green technologies do not generate enough energy at a low enough cost for us to maintain our lifestyle. There are some folks out there who are good natured enough to do this, but don't count on the masses excepting it.
How about putting some sort of bounty on a solution that generates a defined amount energy on a defined budget in a renewable way? This sort of thing has worked somewhat for cancer research. Perhaps it can be applied here.
Well then, I hope I can rest assured that you will be in the 2008 United States presidential election? Since you seemingly have a firmer grasp on politics then those that have devoted much more time and effort into that area of life.
I think that is the problem. You think the Constitution is a political issue.
Quotas do not help with discrimination. They only perpetuate this myth that women need a quota to get ahead. It is detrimental to the women who actually have earned the degree with the current system.
Go ahead and do the quota - you are only going to screw yourselves.
This is because there are a lot of folks who could be a farm hand, but not a lot of folks could be a CEO.
If you are not convinced, take a trip to your local Walmart.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, use tor.
Unless of course you are using a MD5 implementation with a bug in it.
I have done this and had a lot of collisions! :) Who's to say the cops aren't using their own hand rolled MD5 sum maker that is broke.
Because they are only mini socialists, and not super socialists.
Yeah, who is John Galt?
(I love that book, and it seems to be coming true.)
I have been to Austria. They are all angry drivers. I am not surprised they like angry cars.
how about nuking the memory card in the microwave, pitching it in the trash, and buying a new one?
Did ANYONE actually read the article where the very next paragraph says:
Global Warming deniers think that any variation of temperature other than year after year increases in temperature is proof that Global Warming is a hoax. They fail to see the larger picture.
How are you certain that the global warming models are correct when the computer models cannot predict the weather in a week with any accuracy?
...perhaps the fact that 2008 virtually wiped out any direct evidence for global warming should give us pause to reflect that we really don't understand how global climate works and that a multi-trillion dollar plan to combat it might help, hurt, or, most likely, do nothing but eat up so much tax money that if and when we finally do know what to do we will no longer be able to afford it.
And that is a very inconvenient truth.
But you don't understand. We need an excuse to make the state more powerful!
Mod parent up.. The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Which, conveniently, lets just about any type of weather be attributed to global warming (or is that climate change?)
Which is exactly what is happening anyway. Every big storm or unusual meteorological event these days is automatically assumed to be yet another affect of global climate change. According to some, it's even causing forest fires and earthquakes.
NPR has a whole series where they go to some part of the world each week, and talk about how climate change is affecting the people there in some way or another, and how the people are coping (or are doomed).
What is also not mentioned in the NPR reports is that we are actually stopping a lot of carbon emissions. Consider a forest fire - in days past you could conceivably have a fire that burned across the entire North American continent without being stopped.
There is also volcanoes which expel enormous amounts of carbon.
As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.
Plus we only have kept these records for about 110 years. That is hardly enough time to see a trend on the scale of the existence of the earth.
2008 may be the coldest year of the 21st century, but every other 21st century year sits at the top of the list of warmest years on record. Currently seven out of the top eight spots on the list of warmest years on record are occupied by one of the last seven years. Also from the BBC article:
Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.
I hate to point out the obvious, but global warming models do not predict a year over year increase in temperature. Again, from the article:
"The principal thing is to look at the long-term trend," said Dr Kennedy. "2008 will still be significantly above the long-term average. There's been a strong upward trend in the last few decades, and that's the thing to focus on."
What I do not understand is why we should even believe these computer models. We cannot even calculate the weather in the next week with our computer models. How do you expect a skeptic like me to believe that this model is accurate when you are talking about a system that has millions of variables?
That's why we use ice in our cooler chests: when they melt they absorb a lot of heat, and the ice cold runoff keeps the things around them cooler than they would otherwise be. But just because the ice is melting but your beer is cold you can't conclude that the sun has cooled off.
This doesn't seem to adhere to the law of conservation of energy.
When it is hotter, the ice in your cooler melts faster, but the beer does not get colder.
I think that the energy problem is not going to be solved without some unidentified technology. To me it seems that continuing on with oil AND trying to "go green" using the current green technologies is simply not going to work. Current green technologies do not generate enough energy at a low enough cost for us to maintain our lifestyle. There are some folks out there who are good natured enough to do this, but don't count on the masses excepting it. How about putting some sort of bounty on a solution that generates a defined amount energy on a defined budget in a renewable way? This sort of thing has worked somewhat for cancer research. Perhaps it can be applied here.
Well then, I hope I can rest assured that you will be in the 2008 United States presidential election? Since you seemingly have a firmer grasp on politics then those that have devoted much more time and effort into that area of life.
I think that is the problem. You think the Constitution is a political issue.
amen
Quotas do not help with discrimination. They only perpetuate this myth that women need a quota to get ahead. It is detrimental to the women who actually have earned the degree with the current system. Go ahead and do the quota - you are only going to screw yourselves.
So, how do you think food reaches your local grocery store? By truck maybe?
This is because there are a lot of folks who could be a farm hand, but not a lot of folks could be a CEO. If you are not convinced, take a trip to your local Walmart.