When the outcome of your computer model is a forgone conclusion, it's no wonder that the results support your pet theory.
Don't twist my analogy.
The link is you take the dominant forces on the length scale you're interested (for climate thats buoyancy, pressure, thermal flux and Coriolis "force" and for paper its gravity and air resistance).
You then run your model hope that you haven't fucked up the dimensional analysis and thrown away something important.
Now we can at least look at a satellite image for the planet and see where the jet stream and fronts are heading.
Satellite images are all very well for short term forecasting, but long term climate forecasters don't really use them. The basic tools here are the mathematical equations of air/ocean flow/interaction, efficient numerical algorithms and supercomputers (ever wonder what the machines at Los Alamos have been doing since they stopped nuking the shit out of the New Mexico desert?)
There is an enormous amount of research in weather forecasting and climatology and, relatively, very little is done by environmental groups. The biggest spenders in this field are the military, who need accurate short and long term forecasts. Plus, all worthwhile scientific research goes through peer revision, and you'd better believe your methodology will be attacked if it appears that you've begged the question. And people whose work gets rubbished by their peers do not end up with more funding, no matter how friendly their results are.
Most of the climate change predictions are based on computer models. Given our inability to forecast weather accurately at any interval, I doubt very much the computers can handle the much greater complexities of climate change
Then you misunderstand some of the complexities of weather forecasting. One of the reasons that many disparate models of long term climate change agree is that over sufficiently long time scales (10 years plus) the small scale effects (macroscale topography, daily wind variability as opposed to seasonal averages, the exact rate at which polynas open to create saline deep Antarctic water) that contribute to weather forecasting being hard can be neglected. Effectively, you don't need to know "There'll be a tornado in Kansas on Tuesday", when the long timescale model works perfectly well if it knows "They'll be some tornados in the Mid West in 2001".
Think of it like this, if you drop a sheet of paper of a building, you can't tell every flutter it'll make, but you know damn well its going to hit the ground.
What is interesting is that western political leaders almost never use the phrase global warming anymore. The spin doctors have decided that the less worrying term climate change should be used at all times.
It doesn't help when imbeciles like Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) dismiss scientific evidence as "Liberal Claptrap"
I'd rather they send the same message Jack Webb did in Dragnet years ago:
"We live in a democracy, a nation of laws. And when you don't like the laws, you don't break the laws. You work within the system to change the laws."
Of course, this was the United States in the 50s, so what he really meant was "You uppity negroes should all get to the back of the bus where you belong..."
Given the choice between Dragnet and Henry Thoreau, I know who I trust.
Assuming you're URL isn't deceptive, it is quite possible to get Dr Dobbs from some newsagents in the UK. I can think of at least 2 near my house, which is in a smallish town in Staffordshire.
Ask your newsagent!
on the exact moment the X-Files Jumped The Shark. For me, it was the movie, and the realisation that the plot was never going to have a satisfying story arc as long as they milked it like a cash cow...
socialism *IS* a bad thing....often times it works GREAT....for awhile....and then, the system gets abused.
Well err, kind of. The fact is you could say the same thing about capitalism (don't see the capitalist structures gettin' abused, see the links to soft money contributions above). The tro^H^H^H point I was trying to make about peoples knee jerk "socialism = bad" response, is the all dogmatic following or rejection of belief systems is stupid.
Excluding graphic work/rendering and games, obviously, has anyone ever sat at their PC and said "Oh my, the window redraw rate in this is slowing me down..."?
This is something thats measured in hundredths of seconds for Pete's sake...
Which leads to the question:
Was this a genuine (misguided) attempt to introduce legislation or a deliberate blatantly unconstitutional bill introduced by people who wanted to be seen to be acting, without actually have to deal with the moral and legal grey areas?
He just took one of the world's most obviously intelligent groups, and said we're all "children"
Childishness isn't the same as stupidity.
Frankly, confusing the ability to programme computers with cultural and emotional sophistication, as well as getting worked into a lather about someone disagreeing with your opinion of a book, isn't helping your cause any.
So would this mean that EU hackers (where there are no software patents) could distribute patches to give GCC these optimisations (like the crypto people do?)
You can't get it at Redwood City, CA. library, because no one took their copy out, so they sold it. To me. For $3. Its an excellent read, too. Especially the section on the Amicus brief refuting scientific creationism. And the chapter about the Cult of Ayn Rand.
It goes down. The block in the boat displaces the same mass of water as its own mass. The block on the lake floor displaces the same volume of water as it own volume. Concrete is denser than water, so the sunk block displaces less water than the floating one.
Slashdot Mirror
The link is you take the dominant forces on the length scale you're interested (for climate thats buoyancy, pressure, thermal flux and Coriolis "force" and for paper its gravity and air resistance).
You then run your model hope that you haven't fucked up the dimensional analysis and thrown away something important.
ObSlashdot: They also built a Beowulf cluster to do it with
Think of it like this, if you drop a sheet of paper of a building, you can't tell every flutter it'll make, but you know damn well its going to hit the ground.
It doesn't help when imbeciles like Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) dismiss scientific evidence as "Liberal Claptrap"
Given the choice between Dragnet and Henry Thoreau, I know who I trust.
Assuming you're URL isn't deceptive, it is quite possible to get Dr Dobbs from some newsagents in the UK. I can think of at least 2 near my house, which is in a smallish town in Staffordshire. Ask your newsagent!
Hey, I wish I'd said that. Oh, wait, I did.
Fortunately, I'm not an American, and reverse engineering is a right guaranteed to some of us.
on the exact moment the X-Files Jumped The Shark. For me, it was the movie, and the realisation that the plot was never going to have a satisfying story arc as long as they milked it like a cash cow...
Indepenedent thinking is underrated.
Free market capitalism, where everything can be bought and sold. Still feel like using the turn "socialist" as an insult? Gaz, with karma to spare...
GMT+1, so the sun is over the yard-arm, even if I am at work.
Oh, f*ck it. I must stop trying to post when drunk.
Microsoft would be mad>/i> to distribute software containing GPL'd components. It'd undermine their intellectual property, doncha know...
Microsoft would be made to distibrute software containing GPL'd components. It'd undermine their intellectual property, doncha know...
This is something thats measured in hundredths of seconds for Pete's sake...
Which leads to the question: Was this a genuine (misguided) attempt to introduce legislation or a deliberate blatantly unconstitutional bill introduced by people who wanted to be seen to be acting, without actually have to deal with the moral and legal grey areas?
Kewl
So would this mean that EU hackers (where there are no software patents) could distribute patches to give GCC these optimisations (like the crypto people do?)
You can't get it at Redwood City, CA. library, because no one took their copy out, so they sold it. To me. For $3. Its an excellent read, too. Especially the section on the Amicus brief refuting scientific creationism. And the chapter about the Cult of Ayn Rand.
It goes down. The block in the boat displaces the same mass of water as its own mass. The block on the lake floor displaces the same volume of water as it own volume. Concrete is denser than water, so the sunk block displaces less water than the floating one.