Yes. The content providers being lined up for the media consumption device commonly referred to as "the Apple Tablet".
Or how would you go about cost-effectively bringing enough content providers on board to make said chimera a useful product out of the box and avoid a Kindle-like fate for it? If you do have any better idea than Messr. Jobs, send your résumé to Amazon immediately...
My theory is that Apple lost because Windows had more apps
Your theory is wrong. Apple lost to Windows because big business had standardized on DOS because of IBM's reputation.
When it came to supporting more hardware, making development easier, having better APIs/docs, being more open, supporting 3rd party devices, being more cost affective, having more choices and soon on is how Windows won the race to get the most applications.
*boggles in disbelief*
Just how old are you, kid? What you say there is exactly and precisely the opposite in every respect as to how reality was for the entire existence of Windows 1.0 and 2.0. Now go away and before you open your mouth again, check how closely reality matches up to what you say there on the day of Windows 3.0 release. You will find it matches up embarrassingly poorly.
But those are the very reasons that I am predicting that Android will dominate shortly in the PDA/mobile market.
Well, that depends on your definition of "dominate". If you mean "greatest number of released devices", yes you could well be right, since it's the best free smartphone OS so chances are good every manufacturer that's not Apple or RIM will converge on it, yes.
Now, for a sensible definition of "dominate" for a programmer, which is "for what platform will developing be the most profitable?"... well, let's just say I encourage you to believe it's not going to be the iPhone, son.
I believe we will see the iPhone relegated to a small fringe market share of mobile device after it's initial success. With it loosing out to the more open and hardware agnostic Android OS, similar to the sliver OS X holds after losing to Windows for the exact same reasons.
No, the reasons were a) big business perceiving IBM as a business computer maker and Apple as a consumer computer maker, and b) IBM was insanely stupid in allowing Microsoft to compete with PC-DOS. All subsequent developments follow logically.
If your thesis is correct, how is it that although Linux is more open and hardware agnostic than the Windows OS, it has not taken over from Windows on the desktop?
Your statement that "iPhone HTML5 apps are definitively superior to anything you can achieve in Flash or Java on any other platform" is patently ridiculous
I dropped a word there, I meant to say "browser platform". With that correction, I stand by the statement. Since your list of "don't haves" applied to WebKit on the iPhone is, in order, wrong, embarrassingly wrong, wrong as far as I can tell (but please, give me an example of Flash animation that can't be done better in hardware accelerated CSS3 and I'll grant you that trivial point), very wrong, and stupid. So please, go on, because you've provided nothing correct yet.
I'm sure you're very happy that Flash and Java are not allowed to run on the iPhone, because you'd face more competition. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to 'out' you.
Actually no, none of the above are any serious competition for native code. But Objective-C won't be portable to any other platform any time soon; and through WebKit browsers, HTML5 will be. Sooner your decrepit old technologies get consigned to the obsolescence they deserve, the better.
Apparently you're a bit old to recall this, my dear old man, but people have been building HTML applications for years and the results are terrible in comparison to what you can do in Flash or Java.
And apparently, my dear young pup, you're not aware that HTML5 brings new capabilities, especially on the iPhone. To quote myself:
"Our new MindBeam 'application' has animation, device rotation detection, native alerts, and so forth... seriously, it's more polished and functional than a lot of native apps we've seen. There's nothing that we see that jars the illusion."
With hardware graphics acceleration, the canvas tag for arbitrary drawing, full SQLite-backed local data access, and all the native device capabilities exposed... no, as a matter of fact, iPhone HTML5 apps are definitively superior to anything you can achieve in Flash or Java on any other platform. And as I've done some non-trivial Flash programming in my time -- for example, the interactive video player you can check out at videoclix.tv -- I state that with a good deal more experience than I suspect you bring to our discussion.
Or perhaps you have a more complicated Flash project than my videoclix.tv interactive video player that you can make a good argument could not be done better in HTML5 than the way it's done for legacy platforms in Flash? If so, well, I'll start taking you seriously then. But I don't see that happening.
As for my "theory" not "holding up" - I guess SUN and Adobe have been repeatedly rebuffed by Apple for the sake of the iPhone users, eh?
Your theory was that it was all about requiring application sales through the App Store, was it not? The existence of Hottrix selling HTML5 apps, the efforts Apple has put forth to allow HTML apps to appear as native, and the fact that for the year before the SDK came out Apple told developers that HTML was the only way to write applications; all of those show your theory as laughable.
That Apple chooses to not let the inferior legacy technologies of Flash or Java drag down the iPhone user experience, well good for them! Has nothing to do with the observable fact that your theory is bunk.
that intro where you just dismissed cydia offhand took a bit away from it. It would have been one thing if you had numbers,
If you'd like numbers, check out the weekly Admob reports for instance. They will show that less than 8% of user sessions are on jailbroken phones.
I consider that quite sufficient reason to dismiss Cydia offhand. Now, if you have a counterexample -- just one! -- of a publisher that has actually made significant money from a Cydia offering, then I will rethink my offhand dismissal.
Flash (REAL, unchained and fettered, Flash) and Java do not exist on the iPhone for one simple reason: GREED.
If a complete Flash Player and Java are on the iPhone, everyone can develop for the iPhone without an SDK, everyone can publish/sell applications without the crApp Store.
Unfortunately, we can demonstrate your thesis incorrect by example.
People are indeed developing for the iPhone without an SDK and publishing/selling applications without the crApp Store right now, using HTML5. I reviewed an example here, ponying up the big $4.95 over the web to do the complete non-crApp Store buying experience, and was quite impressed indeed with how native it appeared.
As a matter of fact, apparently you're a bit young to remember this, my son, but for the first year after the iPhone was released there was no SDK and developers were told that writing HTML apps, as the above cited people are making a business out of now, would be the only way to develop for the iPhone. And although the release of the SDK rather overpowered it, last year a whole metric fluffton of various hooks and APIs were added specifically to make HTML apps like the above examples more powerful, more native looking, and all around better.... so, looks like your reasoning doesn't hold up. Apple not only approves but is actively promoting the development of non-SDK native-appearing HTML5 apps. Yet, somehow, Flash and Java remain off the phone. Now why, oh why, could that be? Begins with an "S" and ends with a "k", that would be my guess!
It is one of the great tragedies of American history that this nation was founded as a nation that endorsed slavery
And what nation anywhere in the world at any point whatsoever in history up to 1772, when England became the first to outlaw it (but only in England, not the rest of the Empire!) was NOT founded as a nation that endorsed slavery, exactly?
A "tragedy" that is 100% universally the normal condition... is a pretty strange kind of tragedy.
As comparison, if that's a "tragedy", what is Mauritania, which only made slavery a crime in 2007, and by all accounts past a smidgen of lip service nothing's changed for the 600,000 odd "bonded labourers" there? You kinda need some word a bit more intense than "tragedy" here, don't you?
Now, is this spirit being upheld when you buy the app from the App Store? Do you have freedom to distribute copies of it to other iPhone users? Can you change the software and run your changed version? It's pretty clear that people who buy it from the App Store don't have these freedoms;
Where does it specify in the GPL that you must redistribute on the exact device and channel you receive it on? I do not see that. Redistributing simulator binaries is the freedom to distribute the program, just on a different platform, and distributing via Cydia is redistributing it on the same platform but a different channel. The GPL is satisfied.
Well, yes. But you can't install it on your iPhone...
You can run it in the simulator.
Where in the GPL does it mandate that you have to run the source on any particular device? Far as I can see, being able to modify/compile/distribute for the simulator meets the requirements of the GPL just fine.
With the iPhone you cannot redistribute the program for free.
You appear to be confusing free as in speech and free as in beer.
The GPL does not mandate that redistribution be free as in beer. As a matter of fact, it repeatedly accounts for fees associated with redistribution, yes?
Perhaps you can point at the specific clause that declares paying $99/yr or whatever to get your binaries signed for distribution is a violation? Didn't think so.
It's not the effects that are in doubt, but their magnitude.
Not quite. There's doubt not only of the magnitude of effects of C02 concentration in the real atmosphere, there's doubt of the causal correlation between anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Most specifically, as I think you noted above somewhere, no other greenhouse gas is significant next to the effects of water vapor. And the positive feedback between C02 and H20 alleged in the IPCC projections is not only unproven but appears to be contradicted by most real world observations.
Everything I've read indicates that CO2 absorbs a significant amount of infrared radiation and that this climate sensitivity is important -- on the order of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. Why would this heating not be important as a positive feedback mechanism?
Because C02 is not in isolation in the real atmosphere. For it to absorb radiation, radiation of the appropriate wavelengths must be available. It is not clear that is actually the case, and it is definitive that C02 absorption is intricately tied to water content in ways that make the feedback numbers assumed by the AGW models somewhere between "not obviously unproven" and "baseless nonsense". A good paper to start with is "Infrared absorption by CO2 and H2O" here, if you're really concerned about the topic from first principles,
but if you want to skip into the heated-argument bits, go straight to the Hug paper discussed here that alleges the IPCC overstates radiative forcing by 80x or so.
1) show me a correlation between solar activity and temperature
The causal correlation actually appears to be with cycle length, not activity directly. You really should be able to google the various relevant theories on your own, but start here:
Or, just watch the news. As Solar Cycle 24 is being kind enough to help us out by being unprecedentedly long to get started, and temperatures are declining exactly as predicted, you are SITTING IN THE MIDDLE of the correlation right now -- it's the graph I originally posted! And concomitantly, if temperatures turn up again before sunspots do, well then I'll take that as quite sufficient disproof. If I was you I wouldn't put any money on that actually happening, but we'll see, won't we?
2) propose a plausible theory of why past temperature correlates so closely with CO2 excursions, but why this CO2 excursion won't in turn cause a large temperature excursion.
Because C02 levels track the temperature, not lead it, by an 800-odd year margin. Unless you believe causation follows effect, there is nothing more to discuss here, is there? I would hope I could presume that you have at least enough knowledge of the subject to realize that's uncontested peer-reviewed science, but just in case you're actually that ignorant here's a quick starter for you.
that would require you to show that CO2 is instead increased by temperature,
Which is quite easily showable, as water absorbs C02 proportionally to temperature -- you've noticed the recent spate of articles about "ocean acidification" yes? -- and therefore your graph is the expected consequence of oceanic temperature rise. Which I currently feel the best explanation for is lowered cloud cover as described by Svensmark et al., but I'm perfectly willing to change my opinions based on the results of the CERN CLOUD experiments and whatever other actual evidence turns up. As a secondary effect, higher temperatures mean more rotting plant material, that's the thawing of the permafrost and all you've no doubt heard of, but I'm pretty certain that'll turn out a bagatelle next to the oceanic effects.
or that CO2 and temperature increases have typically had a common cause.
Nope; the only primary driver of C02 fluctuations is oceanic temperatures, that's where I'll put my bet. With a tiny hedge for the biosphere carbon cycle perhaps turning out more important than is apparent right now, but that seems vanishingly unlikely to be important over any longish term.
it'll be hard to show that CO2 increases don't cause temperature changes: the physics of the CO2's heat-trapping effects and
Actually, it's not that hard, because artificially raised C02 environments do not show significantly raised heat retention. This indicates that there's much less energy actually available for absorption by C02 to make any difference in the real atmosphere as opposed to idealized physics models. But I won't bother googling anything on the subject, since we already noted above that for C02 to be a significant driver of climate it would have to work backwards in time, which certainly would be a fascinating trick indeed but sane people deem unlikely.
the feedback effect of increased water vapor are well-understood.
Which brings us back to the oceans as mentioned above. To sum up the progression:
1) Solar magnetic flows vary, which is apparently correlated to cycle length;
2) GCRs penetrate the earth's magnetic field in proportion to solar flows;
3) Cloud formation, especially over oceans, is directly and markedly proportional to GCRs. (We await the above-mentioned CERN CLOUD experiments and more years of satellite data for incontrovertibl
If you look at recorded temperatures and ice-core results, you'll find that the runup since the beginning of the industrial revolution is like nothing we've been since the Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Two points:
1) So much of the raw ice core data is discarded because it doesn't fit expected parameters, and interpretation of the expected parameters is subject to so many unprovable assumptions, that any inference of absolute levels as compared to direct instrument measurements is nonsensical. It's rather like the famous 'hockey stick' which was effectively based almost solely on bristlecone pine proxies which have completely diverged from instrumental measurements since those became available -- they continue the linear cooling trend that the hockey stick grafted onto instrumental records. Inconvenient truth, indeed!
2) The beginning of the industrial revolution happens to coincide with the Little Ice Age and apparently-correlated sunspot minima. On this scale, it's not possible yet to disentangle correlation and causation between solar/magnetic cycles and human emissions activity. As you've noticed, I'm quite firmly expecting that the solar folks are correct and the current unprecedented solar quietude is going to predictably lead to further temperature declines for at least the next three-four years, but I'll happily change my mind if solar markers and temperature diverge on a scale of even two years. How many more years of C02/temperature divergence will it get you to question your blind faith?
My, you are intent on demonstrating the entire dictionary of fallacies, aren't you?
Nobody denies climate change. The physical evidence right outside my door is quite sufficient to prove that where I'm sitting in Canada was buried under what was probably quite a large chunk of ice in the extremely recent -- geologically speaking -- past.
The question is whether computer models that have spit out provably falsified predictions to date should somehow be regarded as magically correct now. If that's your definition of "nutjob", well, that certainly does show there's one nutjob in this discussion, yes...
You're right, my friend. Consider the trendline from June of 2008 to January of 2009:
But we understand reasonably thoroughly the diurnal and annual temperature cycles, so that's not snark, that's just nonsense.
The OP's point is that the graph's trendline is meaningless in context.
And what do you deem the "context"? Any "context" smaller than Milankovitch-cycle scale at the very least is cherry-picking, is it not? In that case, what makes your "context" any better than "the last decade" over which temperatures are observably declining?
Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of,
As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
their "best fit" (the violet line).
OK my friend, if your trend line from January 2002 to May 2009 is not a decline of 0.26 degrees per decade like their violet line, what is it then and how did you arrive at it?
Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject
Excuse me? As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
Please provide links to the data of this mysterious "everyone else" you refer to that contradict the published UAH and RSS data.
Otherwise, I think we have a completely new record of asshattery from our coward here: The Appeal to Authority fallacy without any actual authority. Awesome!
despite the ice you stand on in antarctica is melting and you gonna fall into the water in 5 minutes.
Not too likely, considering the record high ice extent of the Antarctic ice sheet was in 2007. 2008 was off a bit yes, but 2009 looks on track to set a new record high.
The problem is that airport temperature sensors are designed to provide temperature information relevant to airplanes taking off. Unfortunately, those measurements are by design -- correct design for their purpose, mind you -- reflective of urban heat island bias.
If you're not working from satellite data, you're working from intrinsically unreliable data which even with the best will in the world (which in practice is almost suspiciously lacking) wouldn't be scientifically sound.
Even if you throw out the 11-year old peak El Niño as a complete freak because since you have your AGW-über-alles blinders on and therefore can make no sense of it (whilst the magnetic/solar theorists -- aka, REAL scientists and not humanity-hating Chicken Littles -- are pointing out that event is exactly is what one expects as a cycle climax... but I digress) there still is no way to interpret the 2002-present data as anything but a sustained downward trend, is there now?
But sure would be nice if you could provide some sensible AGW-centric explanation for the way that C02 continues to climb monotonically whilst temperatures decline. The 'weather is not climate' thing is getting too old to believe by now if you have any kind of a brain, yes? And if not, just exactly how many years does the trend in the graph have to continue before you accept reality?
Sorry, in the Palm world, or the Windows Mobile world, the cost of entry, aside from the phone itself, is exactly $0.
It strikes me that the value of
a) The highest quality mobile development toolchain available, supported by the device developer b) Multiple direct development support incidents for your own coding problems from the same engineers that develop the OS c) Distribution directly to every single device capable of running your application through all worldwide carriers with a single route of direct payment
is vastly greater than $99.
More importantly, it also strikes me that in the Palm world, or the Windows Mobile world, you can not actually achieve a) through c) at ANY price, never mind $99.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, try this one. Read the email,
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt
examine the effect on the reporting.
http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
As this archive has only been out for a couple days, it's probably safe to suspect that's not the most dubious thing to be found.
Yes. The content providers being lined up for the media consumption device commonly referred to as "the Apple Tablet".
Or how would you go about cost-effectively bringing enough content providers on board to make said chimera a useful product out of the box and avoid a Kindle-like fate for it? If you do have any better idea than Messr. Jobs, send your résumé to Amazon immediately...
My theory is that Apple lost because Windows had more apps
Your theory is wrong. Apple lost to Windows because big business had standardized on DOS because of IBM's reputation.
When it came to supporting more hardware, making development easier, having better APIs/docs, being more open, supporting 3rd party devices, being more cost affective, having more choices and soon on is how Windows won the race to get the most applications.
*boggles in disbelief*
Just how old are you, kid? What you say there is exactly and precisely the opposite in every respect as to how reality was for the entire existence of Windows 1.0 and 2.0. Now go away and before you open your mouth again, check how closely reality matches up to what you say there on the day of Windows 3.0 release. You will find it matches up embarrassingly poorly.
But those are the very reasons that I am predicting that Android will dominate shortly in the PDA/mobile market.
Well, that depends on your definition of "dominate". If you mean "greatest number of released devices", yes you could well be right, since it's the best free smartphone OS so chances are good every manufacturer that's not Apple or RIM will converge on it, yes.
Now, for a sensible definition of "dominate" for a programmer, which is "for what platform will developing be the most profitable?" ... well, let's just say I encourage you to believe it's not going to be the iPhone, son.
I believe we will see the iPhone relegated to a small fringe market share of mobile device after it's initial success. With it loosing out to the more open and hardware agnostic Android OS, similar to the sliver OS X holds after losing to Windows for the exact same reasons.
No, the reasons were a) big business perceiving IBM as a business computer maker and Apple as a consumer computer maker, and b) IBM was insanely stupid in allowing Microsoft to compete with PC-DOS. All subsequent developments follow logically.
If your thesis is correct, how is it that although Linux is more open and hardware agnostic than the Windows OS, it has not taken over from Windows on the desktop?
So I upload a binary that crashes on launch; every couple weeks when I get a rejection notice I resubmit it.
To close that strategy off you'd have to have a policy of refusing application submissions after (X) rejections.
Any attempt at that kind of policing would go over ... poorly.
Your statement that "iPhone HTML5 apps are definitively superior to anything you can achieve in Flash or Java on any other platform" is patently ridiculous
I dropped a word there, I meant to say "browser platform". With that correction, I stand by the statement. Since your list of "don't haves" applied to WebKit on the iPhone is, in order, wrong, embarrassingly wrong, wrong as far as I can tell (but please, give me an example of Flash animation that can't be done better in hardware accelerated CSS3 and I'll grant you that trivial point), very wrong, and stupid. So please, go on, because you've provided nothing correct yet.
I'm sure you're very happy that Flash and Java are not allowed to run on the iPhone, because you'd face more competition. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to 'out' you.
Actually no, none of the above are any serious competition for native code. But Objective-C won't be portable to any other platform any time soon; and through WebKit browsers, HTML5 will be. Sooner your decrepit old technologies get consigned to the obsolescence they deserve, the better.
Apparently you're a bit old to recall this, my dear old man, but people have been building HTML applications for years and the results are terrible in comparison to what you can do in Flash or Java.
And apparently, my dear young pup, you're not aware that HTML5 brings new capabilities, especially on the iPhone. To quote myself:
"Our new MindBeam 'application' has animation, device rotation detection, native alerts, and so forth ... seriously, it's more polished and functional than a lot of native apps we've seen. There's nothing that we see that jars the illusion."
With hardware graphics acceleration, the canvas tag for arbitrary drawing, full SQLite-backed local data access, and all the native device capabilities exposed ... no, as a matter of fact, iPhone HTML5 apps are definitively superior to anything you can achieve in Flash or Java on any other platform. And as I've done some non-trivial Flash programming in my time -- for example, the interactive video player you can check out at videoclix.tv -- I state that with a good deal more experience than I suspect you bring to our discussion.
Or perhaps you have a more complicated Flash project than my videoclix.tv interactive video player that you can make a good argument could not be done better in HTML5 than the way it's done for legacy platforms in Flash? If so, well, I'll start taking you seriously then. But I don't see that happening.
As for my "theory" not "holding up" - I guess SUN and Adobe have been repeatedly rebuffed by Apple for the sake of the iPhone users, eh?
Your theory was that it was all about requiring application sales through the App Store, was it not? The existence of Hottrix selling HTML5 apps, the efforts Apple has put forth to allow HTML apps to appear as native, and the fact that for the year before the SDK came out Apple told developers that HTML was the only way to write applications; all of those show your theory as laughable.
That Apple chooses to not let the inferior legacy technologies of Flash or Java drag down the iPhone user experience, well good for them! Has nothing to do with the observable fact that your theory is bunk.
that intro where you just dismissed cydia offhand took a bit away from it. It would have been one thing if you had numbers,
If you'd like numbers, check out the weekly Admob reports for instance. They will show that less than 8% of user sessions are on jailbroken phones.
I consider that quite sufficient reason to dismiss Cydia offhand. Now, if you have a counterexample -- just one! -- of a publisher that has actually made significant money from a Cydia offering, then I will rethink my offhand dismissal.
Flash (REAL, unchained and fettered, Flash) and Java do not exist on the iPhone for one simple reason: GREED.
If a complete Flash Player and Java are on the iPhone, everyone can develop for the iPhone without an SDK, everyone can publish/sell applications without the crApp Store.
Unfortunately, we can demonstrate your thesis incorrect by example.
People are indeed developing for the iPhone without an SDK and publishing/selling applications without the crApp Store right now, using HTML5. I reviewed an example here, ponying up the big $4.95 over the web to do the complete non-crApp Store buying experience, and was quite impressed indeed with how native it appeared.
As a matter of fact, apparently you're a bit young to remember this, my son, but for the first year after the iPhone was released there was no SDK and developers were told that writing HTML apps, as the above cited people are making a business out of now, would be the only way to develop for the iPhone. And although the release of the SDK rather overpowered it, last year a whole metric fluffton of various hooks and APIs were added specifically to make HTML apps like the above examples more powerful, more native looking, and all around better. ... so, looks like your reasoning doesn't hold up. Apple not only approves but is actively promoting the development of non-SDK native-appearing HTML5 apps. Yet, somehow, Flash and Java remain off the phone. Now why, oh why, could that be? Begins with an "S" and ends with a "k", that would be my guess!
It is one of the great tragedies of American history that this nation was founded as a nation that endorsed slavery
And what nation anywhere in the world at any point whatsoever in history up to 1772, when England became the first to outlaw it (but only in England, not the rest of the Empire!) was NOT founded as a nation that endorsed slavery, exactly?
A "tragedy" that is 100% universally the normal condition ... is a pretty strange kind of tragedy.
As comparison, if that's a "tragedy", what is Mauritania, which only made slavery a crime in 2007, and by all accounts past a smidgen of lip service nothing's changed for the 600,000 odd "bonded labourers" there? You kinda need some word a bit more intense than "tragedy" here, don't you?
Now, is this spirit being upheld when you buy the app from the App Store? Do you have freedom to distribute copies of it to other iPhone users? Can you change the software and run your changed version? It's pretty clear that people who buy it from the App Store don't have these freedoms;
Where does it specify in the GPL that you must redistribute on the exact device and channel you receive it on? I do not see that. Redistributing simulator binaries is the freedom to distribute the program, just on a different platform, and distributing via Cydia is redistributing it on the same platform but a different channel. The GPL is satisfied.
Well, yes. But you can't install it on your iPhone...
You can run it in the simulator.
Where in the GPL does it mandate that you have to run the source on any particular device? Far as I can see, being able to modify/compile/distribute for the simulator meets the requirements of the GPL just fine.
With the iPhone you cannot redistribute the program for free.
You appear to be confusing free as in speech and free as in beer.
The GPL does not mandate that redistribution be free as in beer. As a matter of fact, it repeatedly accounts for fees associated with redistribution, yes?
Perhaps you can point at the specific clause that declares paying $99/yr or whatever to get your binaries signed for distribution is a violation? Didn't think so.
It's not the effects that are in doubt, but their magnitude.
Not quite. There's doubt not only of the magnitude of effects of C02 concentration in the real atmosphere, there's doubt of the causal correlation between anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Most specifically, as I think you noted above somewhere, no other greenhouse gas is significant next to the effects of water vapor. And the positive feedback between C02 and H20 alleged in the IPCC projections is not only unproven but appears to be contradicted by most real world observations.
Everything I've read indicates that CO2 absorbs a significant amount of infrared radiation and that this climate sensitivity is important -- on the order of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2. Why would this heating not be important as a positive feedback mechanism?
Because C02 is not in isolation in the real atmosphere. For it to absorb radiation, radiation of the appropriate wavelengths must be available. It is not clear that is actually the case, and it is definitive that C02 absorption is intricately tied to water content in ways that make the feedback numbers assumed by the AGW models somewhere between "not obviously unproven" and "baseless nonsense". A good paper to start with is "Infrared absorption by CO2 and H2O" here, if you're really concerned about the topic from first principles,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978fac..rept.....G
but if you want to skip into the heated-argument bits, go straight to the Hug paper discussed here that alleges the IPCC overstates radiative forcing by 80x or so.
http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
1) show me a correlation between solar activity and temperature
The causal correlation actually appears to be with cycle length, not activity directly. You really should be able to google the various relevant theories on your own, but start here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/254/5032/698
Or, just watch the news. As Solar Cycle 24 is being kind enough to help us out by being unprecedentedly long to get started, and temperatures are declining exactly as predicted, you are SITTING IN THE MIDDLE of the correlation right now -- it's the graph I originally posted! And concomitantly, if temperatures turn up again before sunspots do, well then I'll take that as quite sufficient disproof. If I was you I wouldn't put any money on that actually happening, but we'll see, won't we?
2) propose a plausible theory of why past temperature correlates so closely with CO2 excursions, but why this CO2 excursion won't in turn cause a large temperature excursion.
Because C02 levels track the temperature, not lead it, by an 800-odd year margin. Unless you believe causation follows effect, there is nothing more to discuss here, is there? I would hope I could presume that you have at least enough knowledge of the subject to realize that's uncontested peer-reviewed science, but just in case you're actually that ignorant here's a quick starter for you.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/end-of-last-ice-age-co2-innocent.html
that would require you to show that CO2 is instead increased by temperature,
Which is quite easily showable, as water absorbs C02 proportionally to temperature -- you've noticed the recent spate of articles about "ocean acidification" yes? -- and therefore your graph is the expected consequence of oceanic temperature rise. Which I currently feel the best explanation for is lowered cloud cover as described by Svensmark et al., but I'm perfectly willing to change my opinions based on the results of the CERN CLOUD experiments and whatever other actual evidence turns up. As a secondary effect, higher temperatures mean more rotting plant material, that's the thawing of the permafrost and all you've no doubt heard of, but I'm pretty certain that'll turn out a bagatelle next to the oceanic effects.
or that CO2 and temperature increases have typically had a common cause.
Nope; the only primary driver of C02 fluctuations is oceanic temperatures, that's where I'll put my bet. With a tiny hedge for the biosphere carbon cycle perhaps turning out more important than is apparent right now, but that seems vanishingly unlikely to be important over any longish term.
it'll be hard to show that CO2 increases don't cause temperature changes: the physics of the CO2's heat-trapping effects and
Actually, it's not that hard, because artificially raised C02 environments do not show significantly raised heat retention. This indicates that there's much less energy actually available for absorption by C02 to make any difference in the real atmosphere as opposed to idealized physics models. But I won't bother googling anything on the subject, since we already noted above that for C02 to be a significant driver of climate it would have to work backwards in time, which certainly would be a fascinating trick indeed but sane people deem unlikely.
the feedback effect of increased water vapor are well-understood.
Which brings us back to the oceans as mentioned above. To sum up the progression:
1) Solar magnetic flows vary, which is apparently correlated to cycle length;
2) GCRs penetrate the earth's magnetic field in proportion to solar flows;
3) Cloud formation, especially over oceans, is directly and markedly proportional to GCRs. (We await the above-mentioned CERN CLOUD experiments and more years of satellite data for incontrovertibl
If you look at recorded temperatures and ice-core results, you'll find that the runup since the beginning of the industrial revolution is like nothing we've been since the Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Two points:
1) So much of the raw ice core data is discarded because it doesn't fit expected parameters, and interpretation of the expected parameters is subject to so many unprovable assumptions, that any inference of absolute levels as compared to direct instrument measurements is nonsensical. It's rather like the famous 'hockey stick' which was effectively based almost solely on bristlecone pine proxies which have completely diverged from instrumental measurements since those became available -- they continue the linear cooling trend that the hockey stick grafted onto instrumental records. Inconvenient truth, indeed!
2) The beginning of the industrial revolution happens to coincide with the Little Ice Age and apparently-correlated sunspot minima. On this scale, it's not possible yet to disentangle correlation and causation between solar/magnetic cycles and human emissions activity. As you've noticed, I'm quite firmly expecting that the solar folks are correct and the current unprecedented solar quietude is going to predictably lead to further temperature declines for at least the next three-four years, but I'll happily change my mind if solar markers and temperature diverge on a scale of even two years. How many more years of C02/temperature divergence will it get you to question your blind faith?
climate change denialist nutjob.
My, you are intent on demonstrating the entire dictionary of fallacies, aren't you?
Nobody denies climate change. The physical evidence right outside my door is quite sufficient to prove that where I'm sitting in Canada was buried under what was probably quite a large chunk of ice in the extremely recent -- geologically speaking -- past.
The question is whether computer models that have spit out provably falsified predictions to date should somehow be regarded as magically correct now. If that's your definition of "nutjob", well, that certainly does show there's one nutjob in this discussion, yes...
You're right, my friend. Consider the trendline from June of 2008 to January of 2009:
But we understand reasonably thoroughly the diurnal and annual temperature cycles, so that's not snark, that's just nonsense.
The OP's point is that the graph's trendline is meaningless in context.
And what do you deem the "context"? Any "context" smaller than Milankovitch-cycle scale at the very least is cherry-picking, is it not? In that case, what makes your "context" any better than "the last decade" over which temperatures are observably declining?
Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of,
As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
their "best fit" (the violet line).
OK my friend, if your trend line from January 2002 to May 2009 is not a decline of 0.26 degrees per decade like their violet line, what is it then and how did you arrive at it?
Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject
Excuse me? As clearly labelled, the temperature points are the UAH and RSS global average.
Please provide links to the data of this mysterious "everyone else" you refer to that contradict the published UAH and RSS data.
Otherwise, I think we have a completely new record of asshattery from our coward here: The Appeal to Authority fallacy without any actual authority. Awesome!
despite the ice you stand on in antarctica is melting and you gonna fall into the water in 5 minutes.
Not too likely, considering the record high ice extent of the Antarctic ice sheet was in 2007. 2008 was off a bit yes, but 2009 looks on track to set a new record high.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
Inconvenient truth, indeed!
The problem is that airport temperature sensors are designed to provide temperature information relevant to airplanes taking off. Unfortunately, those measurements are by design -- correct design for their purpose, mind you -- reflective of urban heat island bias.
If you're not working from satellite data, you're working from intrinsically unreliable data which even with the best will in the world (which in practice is almost suspiciously lacking) wouldn't be scientifically sound.
"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim
Er, no, actually, that's observation of the data.
It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled "a wingnut claim" doesn't it now?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
Even if you throw out the 11-year old peak El Niño as a complete freak because since you have your AGW-über-alles blinders on and therefore can make no sense of it (whilst the magnetic/solar theorists -- aka, REAL scientists and not humanity-hating Chicken Littles -- are pointing out that event is exactly is what one expects as a cycle climax ... but I digress) there still is no way to interpret the 2002-present data as anything but a sustained downward trend, is there now?
But sure would be nice if you could provide some sensible AGW-centric explanation for the way that C02 continues to climb monotonically whilst temperatures decline. The 'weather is not climate' thing is getting too old to believe by now if you have any kind of a brain, yes? And if not, just exactly how many years does the trend in the graph have to continue before you accept reality?
Sorry, in the Palm world, or the Windows Mobile world, the cost of entry, aside from the phone itself, is exactly $0.
It strikes me that the value of
a) The highest quality mobile development toolchain available, supported by the device developer
b) Multiple direct development support incidents for your own coding problems from the same engineers that develop the OS
c) Distribution directly to every single device capable of running your application through all worldwide carriers with a single route of direct payment
is vastly greater than $99.
More importantly, it also strikes me that in the Palm world, or the Windows Mobile world, you can not actually achieve a) through c) at ANY price, never mind $99.
There is no apparent limit on the number of people that can be added to a team.
However, the practical limit is that you can only provision for 100 devices from a single account.