I'm not sure, if all the ice melts it may be more than that. I've seen estimates that vary wildly. But we're just talking about West Antarctica...I don't even know that Greenland is being included.
I *think* you're too pessimistic. We won't hold to 2 degrees Centigrade, and we may not hold to 4, and it's quite probable that the sea levels will indeed rise 3 meters, or slightly more. But that's not an insuperable problem. It's going to mean hard times for lots of people, animals, plants, etc., but there are also a lot who will do well. I doubt that it will cause civilization to fall unless somebody starts WWIII.
Expect this to cause a significantly degraded environment, largely due to the fact that people will preempt anything besides people moving into it. But also expect cities to be just about as livable as ever.
I'm not denying that it could be worse. The climate models don't really work when things get that hot. Also, the rise in sea levels will cause a significant increase in the land covered by water, especially salt water. But the new areas will be shallowly covered, which would make them ideal for fish farms (well, for some kinds of fish), oyster beds, etc. There will be a decrease in the land suitable for cow pastures, but not a huge decrease...the real decrease will be their competition with people for living space. Also, due to the increase in CO2, jellyfish will be more common. But fish can eat them, and people can eat jellyfish eggs (they're a bit salty, but delicious in sushi).
So. Great and frightening changes, but that's not the same as guaranteed disaster.
OTOH, it's important to intensify the limitation of CO2 production. I said the models weren't reliable...some of them have indicated that we won't be too far from the kind of runaway greenhouse effect that Venus experienced...and that would be really bad news. Yes, they're unreliable, and only some of them showed this result. But it's not the kind of thing that one should gamble with.
Do you have any idea how many dormant, and not so dormant, volcanoes there are around the world, particularly around the "ring of fire"? The surprise would be if there weren't a lot of volcanoes under the ice.
OTOH, volcanoes can certainly cause the weather to change for a year or two, and the climate to change for a few decades. But I don't think we'll see anything like the Deccan Traps. (I have a theory that they were set off by a giant meteor hitting the opposite side of the world.)
As for the Nitrogen cycle, there have been hints that many of the Nitrogen fixing bacteria are having trouble adapting to something. Whether it's insecticides, fungicides, climate change, or what nobody seems to know. So you're right to be concerned about that. But it's also true that bacteria have a long record of quickly adapting to changed circumstances, so it's probably reasonable that nobody's too worried.
Do note that 3 meter rise, however. I'm not sure whether or not that's enough to flood the San Joaquin valley, but if it is expect the weather to change massively.
For that matter, the Salton Sea is likely to refill with salt water, and so is any place else that's low.
OTOH, you've got a few decades to move, so no need to rush, land prices are already so high that you wouldn't gain much.
If you notice the title of that study it says "ice sheet". I can't follow your link, because I won't allow javascript, but if I recall that study properly it was a study of floating sea ice, not of all ice, and one would expect that when Antarctica was shedding ice, a lot would end up as floating ice sheets rather than immediately melting, so there's no contradiction.
What *is* this precise scientific meaning of likely. I know that probably means the calculated odds are over 50%. How does likely differ from that? Does it assume a bell curve and say more than one standard deviation, or what?
I don't write papers, but when I want a specific meaning I attach numbers, hopefully with error bars, if the numbers aren't themselves bounds.
The thing is, it's questionable how much of the change is already committed. There are a lot of lags in various feedback cycles, and if, say, the permafrost methane is already inevitable, then that may mean that a much greater temperature rise is already inevitable. Methane may have a half life of 50 years (?? not that long??) but it's a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and when it degrades, it degrades to CO2. Nobody's quite sure how much methane is locked up in the permafrost...but it's already starting to melt, so it may well be too late to stabilize things. How much mitigation we can do is uncertain. And the sun is now hotter than it was the last time all that CO2 was in the atmosphere (see carboniferous period http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/c...), so nobody's quite certain what will happen. There are models, but anyone who believes them needs their head examined. We probably won't turn into another Venus, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.
The current state is bad enough that "launching a solar sun shade" is starting to look reasonable, even though it's effects would be uneven, and less than ideal. I'm not sure what the downsides of that one are, but the more feasible proposals for geo-engineering seem to have enough problems that it's worth serious consideration. If we'd started acting conservatively 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this pickle, but we don't have general (political) agreement even yet, so things are pretty much guaranteed to get a lot worse than the more optimistic projections.
Yes, but I've had problems before where different sub-directories had different permission requirements. Sometimes reinstalling is easier than tracking down every change, especially if you've got decent backups.
And I'm no expert, so I can't give you the details you want. But you could check the Linux Kernel developers list where it was discussed. Abusively. Linus did not think highly of the patch at all. Other companies just said "don't install that" and said things like "it won't work with our equipment". If any of them gave details, I didn't hear them. (OTOH, I only hear of this on Slashdot and Soylent News. As I said, that's not where I'm an expert.)
The was an interesting article in the Scientific American sometime last year on that same point. Basically they said a couch potato uses about the same number of calories as a hunter-gatherer who runs down a giraffe (not always successfully). They didn't talk much about muscle mass vs. fat, but they did careful studies of energy utilization.
OTOH, another data point. I'm a retired programmer, and well overweight. I've always had a problem with low cholesterol, low enough that my doctor was worried, but couldn't figure out what to do about it. Now I do exercise moderately, for a programmer with arthritis who's also a city dweller. But I didn't always, and my cholesterol was low anyway.
So you're right, there's got to be a large genetic component. But saying that is a lot different than saying you know which genes are important, which both the article and the fad seem to be doing.
You are wrong. Much of what it shows is tendencies, because it sets up complex homeostatic feedback loops, but, e.g., the shape of your hemoglobin is determined by your DNA (given a quite minimally supportive environment). So is the color of your hair. There's no reason this couldn't extend to the ability to digest particular foods, or the ability of particular foods to satiate.
OTOH, saying that DNA might well determine this doesn't say that they've correctly *OR* completely identified the significant portions of DNA. And just because it might well determine this doesn't mean that it does...that needs to be determined through experiment. So I don't believe either the fad *OR* the rebuttal. All an experiment can show is that one particular collection of proposed DNA targets isn't effective.
The problem is there were a lot of other changes during the same period. You can't be certain that any one particular variable is to blame. Maybe it's all because of too much video game playing.... You don't think that's right? Why not? Prove it!
OTOH, I've lost about 30 pounds by switching to a diet with almost no sugars, and very few starches. But I haven't been able to push it any further down, and I really need to.
Sorry, that one doesn't work. It sure *sounds* like it ought to, but in measured tests it doesn't. (One study was in the Scientific American last year.)
For Metldown, the quality of the last patch they offered, which was so bad that company after company said "don't install that" (though, AFAIK, only Linus added "garbage") seems to indicate that they didn't start development of the patch until after public notice.
Spectre is a different problem, but Meltdown ought to be fixable, if only by disabling the running speculative execution. (Whether they can do better than that I wouldn't guess.) OTOH, that approach should also solve Spectre...but nobody wants to pay that price.
I think that that statement was included as definitive evidence that they had identified the correct source of interference. It's not complete proof, but it's as near as you can usually get.
In fact that's *why* the wires I used to run in cable ducts were twisted. To prevent them from acting as antennas. (I *think* we were more worried about noise reception than transmission, but I just ran the wires, I didn't spec them.)
I rather clearly remember that personal computers used to need FCC certifications (part B I think) to certify that they didn't produce interference. OTOH, this is back in the days of the Apple ][+, and the rules may have changed. Just for drill I checked a fluorescent lamp beside my desk, and it didn't have any FCC sticker, though it could clearly be a source of interference.
So maybe the rules have changed, or perhaps it has to do with interpretation. (I don't remember any florescent lamps with an FCC certification, but this is the first time I've looked. I *know* defective ballasts can cause interference.)
That's always seemed dubious to me. That an aluminum foil box would decrease signal strength significantly is plausible, but wouldn't the corners act as antennas? Perhaps, though, it's just my idea of the shape that's wrong. If you shape it like a cylinder or sphere I wouldn't think you'd get that effect.
OTOH, an earlier post indicated that most probably the problem is with failed joins between separate sheets of aluminum foil, and that seems even more likely.
IFAIKT the interesting part here is that the immune system didn't reject them. OTOH, since it's only 28 days in the embryo, of which only 21 are within the sheep, this may not prove much. (I'm not sure when embryo cells start making it through the placental barrier.)
It makes this particular pre-alpha version pointless. No argument there. But this particular version doesn't even handle things that could easily be handled, like capitalizing sentences. This is clear evidence that it's a pre-alpha version.
All this tells us is that this is another area they're looking into. It give essentially no grounds for judging how well the first release will work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure, if all the ice melts it may be more than that. I've seen estimates that vary wildly. But we're just talking about West Antarctica...I don't even know that Greenland is being included.
I know that because I took a few courses in statistics.
Don't trust Google to give you technical definitions of common words....not unless you carefully validate the sites that are the sources.
I *think* you're too pessimistic. We won't hold to 2 degrees Centigrade, and we may not hold to 4, and it's quite probable that the sea levels will indeed rise 3 meters, or slightly more. But that's not an insuperable problem. It's going to mean hard times for lots of people, animals, plants, etc., but there are also a lot who will do well. I doubt that it will cause civilization to fall unless somebody starts WWIII.
Expect this to cause a significantly degraded environment, largely due to the fact that people will preempt anything besides people moving into it. But also expect cities to be just about as livable as ever.
I'm not denying that it could be worse. The climate models don't really work when things get that hot. Also, the rise in sea levels will cause a significant increase in the land covered by water, especially salt water. But the new areas will be shallowly covered, which would make them ideal for fish farms (well, for some kinds of fish), oyster beds, etc. There will be a decrease in the land suitable for cow pastures, but not a huge decrease...the real decrease will be their competition with people for living space. Also, due to the increase in CO2, jellyfish will be more common. But fish can eat them, and people can eat jellyfish eggs (they're a bit salty, but delicious in sushi).
So. Great and frightening changes, but that's not the same as guaranteed disaster.
OTOH, it's important to intensify the limitation of CO2 production. I said the models weren't reliable...some of them have indicated that we won't be too far from the kind of runaway greenhouse effect that Venus experienced...and that would be really bad news. Yes, they're unreliable, and only some of them showed this result. But it's not the kind of thing that one should gamble with.
Do you have any idea how many dormant, and not so dormant, volcanoes there are around the world, particularly around the "ring of fire"? The surprise would be if there weren't a lot of volcanoes under the ice.
OTOH, volcanoes can certainly cause the weather to change for a year or two, and the climate to change for a few decades. But I don't think we'll see anything like the Deccan Traps. (I have a theory that they were set off by a giant meteor hitting the opposite side of the world.)
As for the Nitrogen cycle, there have been hints that many of the Nitrogen fixing bacteria are having trouble adapting to something. Whether it's insecticides, fungicides, climate change, or what nobody seems to know. So you're right to be concerned about that. But it's also true that bacteria have a long record of quickly adapting to changed circumstances, so it's probably reasonable that nobody's too worried.
Do note that 3 meter rise, however. I'm not sure whether or not that's enough to flood the San Joaquin valley, but if it is expect the weather to change massively.
For that matter, the Salton Sea is likely to refill with salt water, and so is any place else that's low.
OTOH, you've got a few decades to move, so no need to rush, land prices are already so high that you wouldn't gain much.
If you notice the title of that study it says "ice sheet". I can't follow your link, because I won't allow javascript, but if I recall that study properly it was a study of floating sea ice, not of all ice, and one would expect that when Antarctica was shedding ice, a lot would end up as floating ice sheets rather than immediately melting, so there's no contradiction.
What *is* this precise scientific meaning of likely. I know that probably means the calculated odds are over 50%. How does likely differ from that? Does it assume a bell curve and say more than one standard deviation, or what?
I don't write papers, but when I want a specific meaning I attach numbers, hopefully with error bars, if the numbers aren't themselves bounds.
The thing is, it's questionable how much of the change is already committed. There are a lot of lags in various feedback cycles, and if, say, the permafrost methane is already inevitable, then that may mean that a much greater temperature rise is already inevitable. Methane may have a half life of 50 years (?? not that long??) but it's a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and when it degrades, it degrades to CO2. Nobody's quite sure how much methane is locked up in the permafrost...but it's already starting to melt, so it may well be too late to stabilize things. How much mitigation we can do is uncertain. And the sun is now hotter than it was the last time all that CO2 was in the atmosphere (see carboniferous period http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/c...), so nobody's quite certain what will happen. There are models, but anyone who believes them needs their head examined. We probably won't turn into another Venus, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.
The current state is bad enough that "launching a solar sun shade" is starting to look reasonable, even though it's effects would be uneven, and less than ideal. I'm not sure what the downsides of that one are, but the more feasible proposals for geo-engineering seem to have enough problems that it's worth serious consideration. If we'd started acting conservatively 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this pickle, but we don't have general (political) agreement even yet, so things are pretty much guaranteed to get a lot worse than the more optimistic projections.
Yes, but I've had problems before where different sub-directories had different permission requirements. Sometimes reinstalling is easier than tracking down every change, especially if you've got decent backups.
And I'm no expert, so I can't give you the details you want. But you could check the Linux Kernel developers list where it was discussed. Abusively. Linus did not think highly of the patch at all. Other companies just said "don't install that" and said things like "it won't work with our equipment". If any of them gave details, I didn't hear them. (OTOH, I only hear of this on Slashdot and Soylent News. As I said, that's not where I'm an expert.)
An interesting question is, assuming his complaint is valid (not proven, valid) "Was it the company policy, or just his manager wanting to look good?"
I could believe either one, but I lean toward a self-promoting manager.
The was an interesting article in the Scientific American sometime last year on that same point.
Basically they said a couch potato uses about the same number of calories as a hunter-gatherer who runs down a giraffe (not always successfully). They didn't talk much about muscle mass vs. fat, but they did careful studies of energy utilization.
OTOH, another data point. I'm a retired programmer, and well overweight. I've always had a problem with low cholesterol, low enough that my doctor was worried, but couldn't figure out what to do about it. Now I do exercise moderately, for a programmer with arthritis who's also a city dweller. But I didn't always, and my cholesterol was low anyway.
So you're right, there's got to be a large genetic component. But saying that is a lot different than saying you know which genes are important, which both the article and the fad seem to be doing.
You are wrong. Much of what it shows is tendencies, because it sets up complex homeostatic feedback loops, but, e.g., the shape of your hemoglobin is determined by your DNA (given a quite minimally supportive environment). So is the color of your hair. There's no reason this couldn't extend to the ability to digest particular foods, or the ability of particular foods to satiate.
OTOH, saying that DNA might well determine this doesn't say that they've correctly *OR* completely identified the significant portions of DNA. And just because it might well determine this doesn't mean that it does...that needs to be determined through experiment. So I don't believe either the fad *OR* the rebuttal. All an experiment can show is that one particular collection of proposed DNA targets isn't effective.
The problem is there were a lot of other changes during the same period. You can't be certain that any one particular variable is to blame. Maybe it's all because of too much video game playing. ... You don't think that's right? Why not? Prove it!
OTOH, I've lost about 30 pounds by switching to a diet with almost no sugars, and very few starches. But I haven't been able to push it any further down, and I really need to.
Sorry, that one doesn't work. It sure *sounds* like it ought to, but in measured tests it doesn't. (One study was in the Scientific American last year.)
For Metldown, the quality of the last patch they offered, which was so bad that company after company said "don't install that" (though, AFAIK, only Linus added "garbage") seems to indicate that they didn't start development of the patch until after public notice.
Spectre is a different problem, but Meltdown ought to be fixable, if only by disabling the running speculative execution. (Whether they can do better than that I wouldn't guess.) OTOH, that approach should also solve Spectre...but nobody wants to pay that price.
Well, you may believe it's the right action for the wrong reason, but this decision means you can't prove it.
I think that that statement was included as definitive evidence that they had identified the correct source of interference. It's not complete proof, but it's as near as you can usually get.
In fact that's *why* the wires I used to run in cable ducts were twisted. To prevent them from acting as antennas. (I *think* we were more worried about noise reception than transmission, but I just ran the wires, I didn't spec them.)
I rather clearly remember that personal computers used to need FCC certifications (part B I think) to certify that they didn't produce interference. OTOH, this is back in the days of the Apple ][+, and the rules may have changed. Just for drill I checked a fluorescent lamp beside my desk, and it didn't have any FCC sticker, though it could clearly be a source of interference.
So maybe the rules have changed, or perhaps it has to do with interpretation. (I don't remember any florescent lamps with an FCC certification, but this is the first time I've looked. I *know* defective ballasts can cause interference.)
Clearly, I'm not expert, but...
That's always seemed dubious to me. That an aluminum foil box would decrease signal strength significantly is plausible, but wouldn't the corners act as antennas? Perhaps, though, it's just my idea of the shape that's wrong. If you shape it like a cylinder or sphere I wouldn't think you'd get that effect.
OTOH, an earlier post indicated that most probably the problem is with failed joins between separate sheets of aluminum foil, and that seems even more likely.
It's good to hear of the FCC doing their job for a change.
And you *know* the answer is nobody. The crime was committed by a corporation, and not against a politician.
IFAIKT the interesting part here is that the immune system didn't reject them. OTOH, since it's only 28 days in the embryo, of which only 21 are within the sheep, this may not prove much. (I'm not sure when embryo cells start making it through the placental barrier.)
It makes this particular pre-alpha version pointless. No argument there. But this particular version doesn't even handle things that could easily be handled, like capitalizing sentences. This is clear evidence that it's a pre-alpha version.
All this tells us is that this is another area they're looking into. It give essentially no grounds for judging how well the first release will work.