Well you caught that one before I got to it. Here is the other one:
"1) I never said there's no science being done on peak oil"
Really?
[talking about me?] "A real scientists doesn't start talking about peak oil or that humans are dirty animals."
I make as many spilling and gremmer errrs as the next guy on/. and I would give you more slack because based on your bio it doesn't look like english is you first language? But don't get all high and mighty about me not understanding what you are saying if you can't say what you mean and mean what you say.
Speaking of your bio, are you really the director of research at Sony Erickson? And you have nothing better to do than to argue with some stranger on/. about something that is clearly outside of your main field of study? I will remember that next time I buy a stock... or a cell phone!
Dirty animals? I think you have me confused with some right wing straw man. I never talked about humans being dirty animals.
So us scientist don't talk about peak oil? Tell that to the geologist whose job it is to estimate how much oil is left in the earth and how much there was before we started burning it. I guess you could argue that what happens at peak oil is really economics and economics really isn't a hard science. Wait, aren't you the one that quoted an author that is an economist that claims to know more about the earth's atmosphere than those of us who have spent our careers studying the problem.
What is my point in asking what you would do differently to study the atmosphere? My point is that I don't think you are an atmospheric physicist. In fact I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you have probably never read a real peer reviewed journal on atmospheric pyhsics and I don't think you would understand one if you did try to read it.
Anyone who claims that co2 does not warm the earth doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course water vapor is more of a green house gas because it isn't as evenly mixed, there is less of it, and it has more absorption lines thanks to its mickey mouse shape. And the affects of adding more co2 into an atmosphere that already has a lot of it is a little complicated. Well the atmosphere is very complicated, the only thing you can do is put all your findings into a large computer model/calculation that looks at all of the variables. As you add more data the models get better and better. Of course you seem to be pretty quick to dismiss all computer models so I am not sure how you claim to prove any theory. Are you going to go back in time and impliment a control earth?
Here is a quick calculation you can try: calculate all of the solar energy that hits the earth. Next use the blackbody radiation curve to see what temperature a bare earth would be such that the radiation going out equals the radiation coming in. Compare that to the average global temperature of the earth. There you just stumbled onto the fact that the green house affect is real.
So "To do Science" is to quote the definition of the scientific process. You didn't answer my question, if you had grant money what would you do in the field of atmospheric physics that the thousands of trained actual scientist in the field aren't doing? If you had grant money what would you do right now? Do you think they didn't take high school science classes as well before they got their graduate degrees?
To do science? I guess that is different from what the professional physicist who are working in the field are doing? You must go out and tell all of those thousands PHD's that they only you know how to do science. Why all this time they thought they were doing science but they must really have been doing crossword puzzles. So if you had grant money to study the atmosphere right now, what would you do? I am afraid I will have to ask you to be a little more specific than just "to do science."
Why do I keep bringing up peak oil? Because I am pointing out that switching from fossil fuels is something we are going to have to do anyway! Why wait until energy is so expensive that it threatens our western way of life? Let's get a jump start so we can be the Saudi Arabia of green energy.
Ah, so I think I can see where you are coming from now. We must be 100% sure that fossil fuels have a negative impact on the earth before we do anything. 99.9% sure is not good enough. After all, who cares about the only planet we know of that supports human life? The economy is much more important!
Ah, the same argument that holds true for bible thumpers when they say the earth is only 7,000 years old. They think the bible is either 100% true or 100% false so if the earth is older than 10,000 years then there must be no God. It is an all or nothing thing. I guess they use the same argument in science. Scientist must know everything or they know nothing. They do not understand how you can know a lot about the atmosphere but still not have god like powers to count every rain drop. So they conclude that either you can count every rain drop or you do not know what 1+1 equals.
So yes not only are planetary atmospheres an entire field of physics, it is a field of physics that is still being researched. There is good evidence that plowing tons of co2 into the atmosphere is going to change the earth's climate. We know that a little change in the way the giant heat engine that is the earth's atmosphere works could have a huge impact in the earth's climate but we aren't exactly sure how much we can screw with the atmosphere before there is a huge change in the climate.
What most scientists want to do is to continue to do research to learn more about how the atmosphere works so that we will one day make computer models so accurate that we will be able to know exactly what we can do to the atmosphere. In the mean time since we are going to run out of fossil fuels one day anyway (and thus they are already getting more and more expensive and also causing wars,) and there is evidence that green house gases are already affecting our climate, we have decided to ring some alarm bells.
I guess you have a better idea? Do tell! What is your idea?
I pointed out the co2 temperature correlation as just being that, a correlation. It doesn't prove anything but it does make you go hmmm. I was very careful not to say it proves anything and I just mentioned it in passing.
You on the other hand seemed to think that correlation equals causality. Temperature goes up, and so does co2 levels therefore co2 levels must go up because of temperature. Well it is true that oceans cannot hold as much co2 when global temperatures go up, but there are also other ways in which co2 levels could increase.
It really is a chicken and the egg thing. Did co2 levels increase the temperature? Or did increase temperatures cause more co2? Or is it likely that co2 in the ocean causes a positive feedback loop? Temperatures go up for whatever reason (maybe because of green house gases come from other sources -- or maybe not) this causes even more co2 to enter the atmosphere which raises the temperature even more. There are tons of positive and negative feed back loops like that.
Look, the earth's atmosphere is extremely complicated. Planetary atmospheres is an entire branch of physics. The only way to really prove cause and effect beyond a shadow of a doubt is to go back in time and build a control earth (how are you guys doing with that?) In the mean time the best we can do is come up with the best calculations and computer models we can, and they all seem to show that climate change is due to human activity and the climate change is likely to get worse in the future if we don't stop using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels that we will eventually run out of anyway and happen to be placed in land where the people don't like us very much.
No you are correct. The only way to really prove global warming is to go back in time and then set up a control earth. In this control earth you will need to kill all humans before the industrial revolution happens (or at least set them back to the stone age.) After the control earth ages back to 2009 we can compare its climate to the climate we are now observing.
Let me know when you guys have that set up...
In the mean time what we could do is take a look at the overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels is changing our climate (along with the computer models and calculation from our best scientist that do as good of a job of creating a control earth as you can without actually going back in time.) We could use that evidence to motivate us to switch to other forms of energy.
In case you hadn't noticed over the long term the price of fossil fuel based energy tends to go up, and up, and then up some more. That is because we are burning it a lot faster than the earth is making it. You may have also noticed that some of the people who have oil on their land don't like us very much. If we could switch to green technology then we could stabilize the cost of energy while keeping the money other countries pay for energy for ourselves.
I guess our other option is to bury our heads in the sand and say that we won't really know what is happening until we are finished with our control earth. We could look at the evidence that might show that global warming isn't real (well it only really shows that if you work for an oil company, don't know what you are talking about, or are a moron.) We could continue to release co2 into the atmosphere and could continue to burn fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. If we are lucky, the worst that will happen is that energy will become so expensive that our western lifestyle will no longer be possible and we will have to go back to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle. Of course if we are really really unlucky then the worst that could happen is the earth no longer sustains life the same way it did before. But hey when you are talking about the insane amount of money oil companies make each year then it certainly seems like a risk worh taking! After all destroying the only planet we know of that can sustain life really is the worst that could happen.
Let's see, we have a couple of hundred years of people measuring climate scientifically. Next we have thousands of years of human history in which we can infer the climate even if it wasn't measured scientifically. Next we have things like tree rings that can map out how well a tree grew year after year for thousands of years which can tell us about rain fall and seasonal temperature. After that we have geological evidence left by the ways in which climate can alter the earth itself. Finally we have arctic ice. The thickness of a layer of ice can tell use much about average global temeperature year after year for millions of years. Not only that but the ice tends to dissolve things like co2 and aerosols that were in the atmosphere at the time the ice froze.
Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html for those that have never heard of google -- but there are many other references besides Al Gore.)
But yeah except for the ice sheets, evidence left in trees and other geological evidence, as well as measurements made by humans either scientifically or not, we don't really have a freaking clue when it comes to what our climate is and what is normal and what isn't. After all, if it is from the oil company, or if you saw it on the discovery channel then that must make you an expert and everything you think must be true!
Note, I am not trying to slam the discovery channel. They make some good programs. But tv doesn't make you an expert!
Yes, you missed that it is called climate change, and not global warming. The earth is a very complicated heat engine. There are feed backs, inverse feedbacks, flows and currents moving heat around all over the place. If you dramatically change the climate then you may dramatically the way the heat engine works. This may mean that some places get colder even if on average the earth is getting warmer.
So yes, if it is colder in places that are supposed to be warmer, then it may be climate change. If it is warmer where it is supposed to be colder then it may be climate change.
Note also it is climate change. Climate means weather over a long period of time. So if it is freakishly warm one day, or strangely cold another day (or week or even season) then it may not be climate change. You need to look at trends over a long period of time before you can say anything about the climate.
Of course the fact that the earth is extremely complicated doesn't stop some people from using some FUD from oil companies along with a couple of hours of watching the Discovery channel to think that they know everything about an entire field of physics.
Hmmm, so what you are saying is that next time I read something on the internet I shouldn't bother to look to see if it is true or not? I should just sit on my ass and let the person saying it prove it to me? Should I then believe everything I read on the internet if the person writting it sounds plausable?
Look I made a statement, and then a couple of people asked for a source and suggested I made the entire thing up. I really wasn't starting an argument but I guess if my statement differs from your world view you might think that it was an argument.
Then I pointed out that if you go onto google you can see a bunch of references to my statement in peer reviewed journals and see that I wasn't making it up. Frankly I was in shock that someone would come to any conclusion at all about my statement without at least checking google first. But I guess it is easier to post something on slashdot asking someone to look something up for you than it is to actually look something up for yourself. Maybe that is why we have so many intellectually lazy people in this world.
Here is a little tip for you, if you see something on the internet and you aren't sure if it is true or not maybe it would be a good idea to see for yourself. Heck if you see something on the internet and you are pretty sure it is true maybe you should check anyway. Even if it sounds logical you can't believe everything you read on comments on slashdot. It is not up to someone else to hold your hand and show you how the world works.
I used the computer lab when I was in college since my desktop was at home and I didn't feel like getting a laptop. Also it was in the 90's. Why would I want to use the 386 (later a pentium 75 overclocked to the massive 90mhz beast) I had at home (commuter) when they had a lab full of the latest SGI workstations? Plus the SGI lab was where all the cool... err dorky people hung out.
Anyway, if they have no lab then not only would you have to buy a laptop but also a printer. And what happens when your laptop dies a week before your big paper is due? What if you want to print another copy out while you are at school? And how expensive is it really to just have a small room full of old PCs. I guess you might have to have some system administration but that is what graduate students are for.
Maybe, course the aerosols cause other problems.. like cancer. One of the reasons for the famine in Ethiopia in the 80's were the number of aerosols that were emitted by the western nations. The aerosols blocked some of the sun and changed some of the currents in the oceans slightly. The result was that there were parts of africa that didn't get the seasonal rains the people rely on. Sometimes the earth can take a lot of abuse and just bounce right back, then again sometimes a little change here and a little change there can cause slight changes that have big effects. Luckily we cut many of the particle emissions and the rains eventually came back.
Ok, we are only say 99% sure that global climate change... no let's meet you half way and say we are only 70% sure global climate change will cause havoc with local weather. It could cause famines and other serious problems. It could make it difficult for the earth to support human life as we know it. This is the earth we are talking about, the only planet we know of where any life at all can survive. But you are right 99% or 70% or whatever isn't 100%.
So if it will make you feel better, we are 100% sure that if we do not do something to switch to green renewable technologies then it will lead to an energy crisis that will cause havoc throughout the world. It could lead to famine (so much of our food productiion depends on cheap energy) and may make it impossible for civilized life as we know it to exist.
Either way I think we should think about listening to the tree huggers over the multi-national corporations on this one -- but that is just me and BTW I don't always listen to the tree huggers on everything.
Heat is a form of energy, but not all energy is equally useful. See the second law of thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Sadly that law of thermodynamics states that you can no more turn wasted heat back into useful energy than you can produce a propetual motion machine, (or throw a bunch of bits of china on the floor and expect them to turn back into a coffee cup.)
In the seventies people were just begining to look at the problem. Also, back then aerosols emmitted by diesel engines and coal power plants were affecting climate change more than green house gases. People started to filter the particles when they realized that the particles tend to do things like cause cancer. Once the particles were blocked the earth started warming.
But anyway, what you are saying is that since the quick conclusion that people came up with when the study of climate change was in its infancy were wrong, all of the work and research that the worlds tops scientists did for the next 30+ years must also be wrong as well? I guess that argument makes sense if you don't think about it for more than 15 minutes.
In 2007 Exxon-mobile made more money than any company in the history of mankind. It seems there is more money/power in denying global warming.
Anyway, how do you know how history will see Dyson? Does your crystal ball work better than mine? I have no problem with a crazy old physicist coming out and saying that all of your theories are wrong. If you can prove the crazy old man wrong then that just strengthens your theory -- if you can't prove him wrong then you must question your theory. The problem I have is that faux news is probably going to turn this into a full blown "news" story about how we should all keep our SUVs.
Look, even if Dyson is correct the fact is that there are only so many fossil fuels on the planet and the Earth is making more a lot more slowly than we are burning them. All of our energy and technology are linked to this stuff. Even if global warming is caused by something else, we will need to switch to green technology sooner or later. And if we beging to switch sooner rather then later then it will be cheaper in the long run. Energy costs are just going to go up and up and up until we find renewable sources.
It almost seems like fox thinks that nerds are more likely not to have plans on Friday night than other groups. Either that or maybe they think nerds are more likely to have DVRs? What are they thinking?
In order to comply with the new rules for anonymous posting, public restrooms in Maryland have a new policy.
If someone write something like "for a good time call (410)-xxx-xxxx" and it is later found that this statement may be defamatory (perhaps someone called the number and was not given a good time) the bathroom operators must notify the grafitti artist that he is the subject of a subpeona. This could involve writting "call 800-xxx-xxxx if you thought you had a good time by calling (410)-xxx-xxxx" underneath the text saying "here I sit broken hearted..." The judge then has the option of calling the said number to see if calling the number really does give a good time. If not then the bathroom operators are required to hand over whoever posted the anonymous report on their bathroom page. Note this could involve handing over everyone who used the john between the hours in which the post was added or going through everyone who called the number to see if it really would give a good time.
Check out ReactOS. Clone of the NT kernel so it can use windows driver. Uses WINE for the windows API. Everything is clean reverse engineered and free as in speech.
In the US the Accord isn't considered small either. The Accord is classified as a mid-sized car. In other words it is considered a standard sized family car. The Civic which I understand is considered a standard family car in Europe is considered a small family car in the US. The Fit ( called the Jazz in some markets) is considered a compact car. Honda doesn't sell anything smaller than the Fit in the US but they might sell them here soon.
Another difference is that I understand that in Europe when you buy the Jazz you get a long list of engine options. In the US you only get one with the Fit and that is the most powerful gas (petrol) engine that you can get in Europe.
The smart fortwo just got introduced here and I understand it is doing well. So with the success of the fortwo and high gas prices hopefully the car market in the US will soon be the same as the market in the rest of the world.
In the long run gas prices can do nothing but rise; that is unless and until we find a better replacement. Eventually we will reach peak oil and prices will increase and increase because demand will still be going up but all of a sudden supply starts going down. We will reach peak oil probably in my lifetime and there are people who predict that we have reached it already (no one really knows how much oil is in the ground.)
I guess I am worried that the current high price may in part be due to people speculating that we have reached peak oil (or that at least supply can no longer match demand.) If people buy oil futures in speculation of an oil shock that may not be as big as expected then prices will fall again.
If prices fall then people might go back to old habits and then when they rise again people might just expect prices to drop again like it did in 2008.
I guess I am hoping for a nice steady rise so we can switch to renewable sources as quickly as and painlessly as possible. Of course if we were to pass regulation to encourage a switch to a better energy source before we reach peak oil then we would make the transition a lot less painfully than we would if we just wait for peak oil and then let the market force the change. Yes the free market will make sure that eventually we will all be using renewable resources. The only question is what will the economy be like by then? Will we have a middle class at all at that point? The sooner we get to work ending the oil age and going on to something better then the better off we will all be in the long run.
As has been pointed out by others, government property usually goes to surplus. BTW, if you are underfunded and work for the government or a big lab it is often a good idea to find out where the surplus is -- often they will be happy to transfer all sorts of good slightly used stuff with only a bit of paperwork. I know people who have done things like produce an entire working machine shop out of stuff they got from surplus. Anyway eventually it will be sold for auction if no one else in the government takes it. If your state government doesn't do that then you need to seriously talk to you state senator about waste and abuse.
It would be nice if someone working for the government could quickly point out that something is broken or too old to do anything but throw away, or so new that it needs to be resold NOW. Unfortunately that will likely never happen. It is all part of my 60 minutes theory. At one point it was probably a policy where someone working for the government could do something like that easily. But then someone somewhere was likely abusing the system by saying things were broken when they worked just fine and then selling them off for high profits. Likely this ended up on 60 minutes and so now there is a large wasteful government agency to prevent this. No the system isn't perfect but believe it or not often it evolved in a certain way for a reason.
Anyway you can go to gsaauctions.gov to get where the federal government eventually auctions its stuff off, or you can contact your state to see where they auction their stuff off. Want to get a slightly used crown vic that was once a tricked out FBI police car? gsaauctions.gov will let you bid on one. As well as a lot of other junk that no other agency wants and has been locked in a big room for a while. Actually the GSA takes really good care of their cars and you can get things like fleet cars that run on natural gas (if you are into that sort of thing.) You can also get all sorts of used computer and maybe nasa junk.
What do you mean there will eventually be a shortage of food? There is a shortage of food right now!
In the US it just means higher food prices (although if food starts getting really expensive here it could hurt the already battered middle class in this country.)
In some places around the world it has meant food riots and shortages. I read a story recently about it getting difficult if not impossible to find things like butter even in rich Japan. There have been protests in Mexico because of the rising price of corn for a while now (the increase in price of corn is largely due to US producers making corn for fuel instead of food.) Recently more countries have been having demonstrations about the rising price of food. For much of the world a large increase in food prices means one thing: starvation!
There are other things at work pushing up the prices of food but one thing that is doing it is ethanol linking the price of food with the price of gasoline.
If you can make gas out of non-edible biomass then that is one thing but IMO making fuel out of edible crops is just stupid.
We have gotten used to food being cheap in this country and have forgotten what a blessing it is. Our biggest problem with food now is obesity. Some of us have no idea how lucky we are.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you caught that one before I got to it. Here is the other one:
"1) I never said there's no science being done on peak oil"
Really?
[talking about me?] "A real scientists doesn't start talking about peak oil or that humans are dirty animals."
I make as many spilling and gremmer errrs as the next guy on /. and I would give you more slack because based on your bio it doesn't look like english is you first language? But don't get all high and mighty about me not understanding what you are saying if you can't say what you mean and mean what you say.
Speaking of your bio, are you really the director of research at Sony Erickson? And you have nothing better to do than to argue with some stranger on /. about something that is clearly outside of your main field of study? I will remember that next time I buy a stock ... or a cell phone!
Dirty animals? I think you have me confused with some right wing straw man. I never talked about humans being dirty animals.
So us scientist don't talk about peak oil? Tell that to the geologist whose job it is to estimate how much oil is left in the earth and how much there was before we started burning it. I guess you could argue that what happens at peak oil is really economics and economics really isn't a hard science. Wait, aren't you the one that quoted an author that is an economist that claims to know more about the earth's atmosphere than those of us who have spent our careers studying the problem.
What is my point in asking what you would do differently to study the atmosphere? My point is that I don't think you are an atmospheric physicist. In fact I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you have probably never read a real peer reviewed journal on atmospheric pyhsics and I don't think you would understand one if you did try to read it.
Anyone who claims that co2 does not warm the earth doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course water vapor is more of a green house gas because it isn't as evenly mixed, there is less of it, and it has more absorption lines thanks to its mickey mouse shape. And the affects of adding more co2 into an atmosphere that already has a lot of it is a little complicated. Well the atmosphere is very complicated, the only thing you can do is put all your findings into a large computer model/calculation that looks at all of the variables. As you add more data the models get better and better. Of course you seem to be pretty quick to dismiss all computer models so I am not sure how you claim to prove any theory. Are you going to go back in time and impliment a control earth?
Here is a quick calculation you can try: calculate all of the solar energy that hits the earth. Next use the blackbody radiation curve to see what temperature a bare earth would be such that the radiation going out equals the radiation coming in. Compare that to the average global temperature of the earth. There you just stumbled onto the fact that the green house affect is real.
So "To do Science" is to quote the definition of the scientific process. You didn't answer my question, if you had grant money what would you do in the field of atmospheric physics that the thousands of trained actual scientist in the field aren't doing? If you had grant money what would you do right now? Do you think they didn't take high school science classes as well before they got their graduate degrees?
To do science? I guess that is different from what the professional physicist who are working in the field are doing? You must go out and tell all of those thousands PHD's that they only you know how to do science. Why all this time they thought they were doing science but they must really have been doing crossword puzzles. So if you had grant money to study the atmosphere right now, what would you do? I am afraid I will have to ask you to be a little more specific than just "to do science."
Why do I keep bringing up peak oil? Because I am pointing out that switching from fossil fuels is something we are going to have to do anyway! Why wait until energy is so expensive that it threatens our western way of life? Let's get a jump start so we can be the Saudi Arabia of green energy.
Ah, so I think I can see where you are coming from now. We must be 100% sure that fossil fuels have a negative impact on the earth before we do anything. 99.9% sure is not good enough. After all, who cares about the only planet we know of that supports human life? The economy is much more important!
Ah, the same argument that holds true for bible thumpers when they say the earth is only 7,000 years old. They think the bible is either 100% true or 100% false so if the earth is older than 10,000 years then there must be no God. It is an all or nothing thing. I guess they use the same argument in science. Scientist must know everything or they know nothing. They do not understand how you can know a lot about the atmosphere but still not have god like powers to count every rain drop. So they conclude that either you can count every rain drop or you do not know what 1+1 equals.
So yes not only are planetary atmospheres an entire field of physics, it is a field of physics that is still being researched. There is good evidence that plowing tons of co2 into the atmosphere is going to change the earth's climate. We know that a little change in the way the giant heat engine that is the earth's atmosphere works could have a huge impact in the earth's climate but we aren't exactly sure how much we can screw with the atmosphere before there is a huge change in the climate.
What most scientists want to do is to continue to do research to learn more about how the atmosphere works so that we will one day make computer models so accurate that we will be able to know exactly what we can do to the atmosphere. In the mean time since we are going to run out of fossil fuels one day anyway (and thus they are already getting more and more expensive and also causing wars,) and there is evidence that green house gases are already affecting our climate, we have decided to ring some alarm bells.
I guess you have a better idea? Do tell! What is your idea?
I pointed out the co2 temperature correlation as just being that, a correlation. It doesn't prove anything but it does make you go hmmm. I was very careful not to say it proves anything and I just mentioned it in passing.
You on the other hand seemed to think that correlation equals causality. Temperature goes up, and so does co2 levels therefore co2 levels must go up because of temperature. Well it is true that oceans cannot hold as much co2 when global temperatures go up, but there are also other ways in which co2 levels could increase.
It really is a chicken and the egg thing. Did co2 levels increase the temperature? Or did increase temperatures cause more co2? Or is it likely that co2 in the ocean causes a positive feedback loop? Temperatures go up for whatever reason (maybe because of green house gases come from other sources -- or maybe not) this causes even more co2 to enter the atmosphere which raises the temperature even more. There are tons of positive and negative feed back loops like that.
Look, the earth's atmosphere is extremely complicated. Planetary atmospheres is an entire branch of physics. The only way to really prove cause and effect beyond a shadow of a doubt is to go back in time and build a control earth (how are you guys doing with that?) In the mean time the best we can do is come up with the best calculations and computer models we can, and they all seem to show that climate change is due to human activity and the climate change is likely to get worse in the future if we don't stop using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels that we will eventually run out of anyway and happen to be placed in land where the people don't like us very much.
No you are correct. The only way to really prove global warming is to go back in time and then set up a control earth. In this control earth you will need to kill all humans before the industrial revolution happens (or at least set them back to the stone age.) After the control earth ages back to 2009 we can compare its climate to the climate we are now observing.
Let me know when you guys have that set up ...
In the mean time what we could do is take a look at the overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels is changing our climate (along with the computer models and calculation from our best scientist that do as good of a job of creating a control earth as you can without actually going back in time.) We could use that evidence to motivate us to switch to other forms of energy.
In case you hadn't noticed over the long term the price of fossil fuel based energy tends to go up, and up, and then up some more. That is because we are burning it a lot faster than the earth is making it. You may have also noticed that some of the people who have oil on their land don't like us very much. If we could switch to green technology then we could stabilize the cost of energy while keeping the money other countries pay for energy for ourselves.
I guess our other option is to bury our heads in the sand and say that we won't really know what is happening until we are finished with our control earth. We could look at the evidence that might show that global warming isn't real (well it only really shows that if you work for an oil company, don't know what you are talking about, or are a moron.) We could continue to release co2 into the atmosphere and could continue to burn fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. If we are lucky, the worst that will happen is that energy will become so expensive that our western lifestyle will no longer be possible and we will have to go back to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle. Of course if we are really really unlucky then the worst that could happen is the earth no longer sustains life the same way it did before. But hey when you are talking about the insane amount of money oil companies make each year then it certainly seems like a risk worh taking! After all destroying the only planet we know of that can sustain life really is the worst that could happen.
Let's see, we have a couple of hundred years of people measuring climate scientifically. Next we have thousands of years of human history in which we can infer the climate even if it wasn't measured scientifically. Next we have things like tree rings that can map out how well a tree grew year after year for thousands of years which can tell us about rain fall and seasonal temperature. After that we have geological evidence left by the ways in which climate can alter the earth itself. Finally we have arctic ice. The thickness of a layer of ice can tell use much about average global temeperature year after year for millions of years. Not only that but the ice tends to dissolve things like co2 and aerosols that were in the atmosphere at the time the ice froze.
Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html for those that have never heard of google -- but there are many other references besides Al Gore.)
But yeah except for the ice sheets, evidence left in trees and other geological evidence, as well as measurements made by humans either scientifically or not, we don't really have a freaking clue when it comes to what our climate is and what is normal and what isn't. After all, if it is from the oil company, or if you saw it on the discovery channel then that must make you an expert and everything you think must be true!
Note, I am not trying to slam the discovery channel. They make some good programs. But tv doesn't make you an expert!
Yes, you missed that it is called climate change, and not global warming. The earth is a very complicated heat engine. There are feed backs, inverse feedbacks, flows and currents moving heat around all over the place. If you dramatically change the climate then you may dramatically the way the heat engine works. This may mean that some places get colder even if on average the earth is getting warmer.
So yes, if it is colder in places that are supposed to be warmer, then it may be climate change. If it is warmer where it is supposed to be colder then it may be climate change.
Note also it is climate change. Climate means weather over a long period of time. So if it is freakishly warm one day, or strangely cold another day (or week or even season) then it may not be climate change. You need to look at trends over a long period of time before you can say anything about the climate.
Of course the fact that the earth is extremely complicated doesn't stop some people from using some FUD from oil companies along with a couple of hours of watching the Discovery channel to think that they know everything about an entire field of physics.
Hmmm, so what you are saying is that next time I read something on the internet I shouldn't bother to look to see if it is true or not? I should just sit on my ass and let the person saying it prove it to me? Should I then believe everything I read on the internet if the person writting it sounds plausable?
Look I made a statement, and then a couple of people asked for a source and suggested I made the entire thing up. I really wasn't starting an argument but I guess if my statement differs from your world view you might think that it was an argument.
Then I pointed out that if you go onto google you can see a bunch of references to my statement in peer reviewed journals and see that I wasn't making it up. Frankly I was in shock that someone would come to any conclusion at all about my statement without at least checking google first. But I guess it is easier to post something on slashdot asking someone to look something up for you than it is to actually look something up for yourself. Maybe that is why we have so many intellectually lazy people in this world.
Here is a little tip for you, if you see something on the internet and you aren't sure if it is true or not maybe it would be a good idea to see for yourself. Heck if you see something on the internet and you are pretty sure it is true maybe you should check anyway. Even if it sounds logical you can't believe everything you read on comments on slashdot. It is not up to someone else to hold your hand and show you how the world works.
I used the computer lab when I was in college since my desktop was at home and I didn't feel like getting a laptop. Also it was in the 90's. Why would I want to use the 386 (later a pentium 75 overclocked to the massive 90mhz beast) I had at home (commuter) when they had a lab full of the latest SGI workstations? Plus the SGI lab was where all the cool ... err dorky people hung out.
Anyway, if they have no lab then not only would you have to buy a laptop but also a printer. And what happens when your laptop dies a week before your big paper is due? What if you want to print another copy out while you are at school? And how expensive is it really to just have a small room full of old PCs. I guess you might have to have some system administration but that is what graduate students are for.
Proof of claim of aerosols caused famine in Africa in the 80's? It's called google! Maybe if you have been using this internet thing for a while you should try it. But since you are too lazy I guess I will do it for you. How about:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/07/22/aerosol020722.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-54622826.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-07-22-africandrought.htm
Basically all over the freaking place. I also saw it once on nova on pbs, here I think:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
Maybe, course the aerosols cause other problems .. like cancer. One of the reasons for the famine in Ethiopia in the 80's were the number of aerosols that were emitted by the western nations. The aerosols blocked some of the sun and changed some of the currents in the oceans slightly. The result was that there were parts of africa that didn't get the seasonal rains the people rely on. Sometimes the earth can take a lot of abuse and just bounce right back, then again sometimes a little change here and a little change there can cause slight changes that have big effects. Luckily we cut many of the particle emissions and the rains eventually came back.
Ok, we are only say 99% sure that global climate change ... no let's meet you half way and say we are only 70% sure global climate change will cause havoc with local weather. It could cause famines and other serious problems. It could make it difficult for the earth to support human life as we know it. This is the earth we are talking about, the only planet we know of where any life at all can survive. But you are right 99% or 70% or whatever isn't 100%.
So if it will make you feel better, we are 100% sure that if we do not do something to switch to green renewable technologies then it will lead to an energy crisis that will cause havoc throughout the world. It could lead to famine (so much of our food productiion depends on cheap energy) and may make it impossible for civilized life as we know it to exist.
Either way I think we should think about listening to the tree huggers over the multi-national corporations on this one -- but that is just me and BTW I don't always listen to the tree huggers on everything.
Heat is a form of energy, but not all energy is equally useful. See the second law of thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Sadly that law of thermodynamics states that you can no more turn wasted heat back into useful energy than you can produce a propetual motion machine, (or throw a bunch of bits of china on the floor and expect them to turn back into a coffee cup.)
In the seventies people were just begining to look at the problem. Also, back then aerosols emmitted by diesel engines and coal power plants were affecting climate change more than green house gases. People started to filter the particles when they realized that the particles tend to do things like cause cancer. Once the particles were blocked the earth started warming.
But anyway, what you are saying is that since the quick conclusion that people came up with when the study of climate change was in its infancy were wrong, all of the work and research that the worlds tops scientists did for the next 30+ years must also be wrong as well? I guess that argument makes sense if you don't think about it for more than 15 minutes.
In 2007 Exxon-mobile made more money than any company in the history of mankind. It seems there is more money/power in denying global warming.
Anyway, how do you know how history will see Dyson? Does your crystal ball work better than mine? I have no problem with a crazy old physicist coming out and saying that all of your theories are wrong. If you can prove the crazy old man wrong then that just strengthens your theory -- if you can't prove him wrong then you must question your theory. The problem I have is that faux news is probably going to turn this into a full blown "news" story about how we should all keep our SUVs.
Look, even if Dyson is correct the fact is that there are only so many fossil fuels on the planet and the Earth is making more a lot more slowly than we are burning them. All of our energy and technology are linked to this stuff. Even if global warming is caused by something else, we will need to switch to green technology sooner or later. And if we beging to switch sooner rather then later then it will be cheaper in the long run. Energy costs are just going to go up and up and up until we find renewable sources.
It almost seems like fox thinks that nerds are more likely not to have plans on Friday night than other groups. Either that or maybe they think nerds are more likely to have DVRs? What are they thinking?
In order to comply with the new rules for anonymous posting, public restrooms in Maryland have a new policy.
If someone write something like "for a good time call (410)-xxx-xxxx" and it is later found that this statement may be defamatory (perhaps someone called the number and was not given a good time) the bathroom operators must notify the grafitti artist that he is the subject of a subpeona. This could involve writting "call 800-xxx-xxxx if you thought you had a good time by calling (410)-xxx-xxxx" underneath the text saying "here I sit broken hearted..." The judge then has the option of calling the said number to see if calling the number really does give a good time. If not then the bathroom operators are required to hand over whoever posted the anonymous report on their bathroom page. Note this could involve handing over everyone who used the john between the hours in which the post was added or going through everyone who called the number to see if it really would give a good time.
Check out ReactOS. Clone of the NT kernel so it can use windows driver. Uses WINE for the windows API. Everything is clean reverse engineered and free as in speech.
In the US the Accord isn't considered small either. The Accord is classified as a mid-sized car. In other words it is considered a standard sized family car. The Civic which I understand is considered a standard family car in Europe is considered a small family car in the US. The Fit ( called the Jazz in some markets) is considered a compact car. Honda doesn't sell anything smaller than the Fit in the US but they might sell them here soon.
Another difference is that I understand that in Europe when you buy the Jazz you get a long list of engine options. In the US you only get one with the Fit and that is the most powerful gas (petrol) engine that you can get in Europe.
The smart fortwo just got introduced here and I understand it is doing well. So with the success of the fortwo and high gas prices hopefully the car market in the US will soon be the same as the market in the rest of the world.
In the long run gas prices can do nothing but rise; that is unless and until we find a better replacement. Eventually we will reach peak oil and prices will increase and increase because demand will still be going up but all of a sudden supply starts going down. We will reach peak oil probably in my lifetime and there are people who predict that we have reached it already (no one really knows how much oil is in the ground.)
I guess I am worried that the current high price may in part be due to people speculating that we have reached peak oil (or that at least supply can no longer match demand.) If people buy oil futures in speculation of an oil shock that may not be as big as expected then prices will fall again.
If prices fall then people might go back to old habits and then when they rise again people might just expect prices to drop again like it did in 2008.
I guess I am hoping for a nice steady rise so we can switch to renewable sources as quickly as and painlessly as possible. Of course if we were to pass regulation to encourage a switch to a better energy source before we reach peak oil then we would make the transition a lot less painfully than we would if we just wait for peak oil and then let the market force the change. Yes the free market will make sure that eventually we will all be using renewable resources. The only question is what will the economy be like by then? Will we have a middle class at all at that point? The sooner we get to work ending the oil age and going on to something better then the better off we will all be in the long run.
As has been pointed out by others, government property usually goes to surplus. BTW, if you are underfunded and work for the government or a big lab it is often a good idea to find out where the surplus is -- often they will be happy to transfer all sorts of good slightly used stuff with only a bit of paperwork. I know people who have done things like produce an entire working machine shop out of stuff they got from surplus. Anyway eventually it will be sold for auction if no one else in the government takes it. If your state government doesn't do that then you need to seriously talk to you state senator about waste and abuse.
It would be nice if someone working for the government could quickly point out that something is broken or too old to do anything but throw away, or so new that it needs to be resold NOW. Unfortunately that will likely never happen. It is all part of my 60 minutes theory. At one point it was probably a policy where someone working for the government could do something like that easily. But then someone somewhere was likely abusing the system by saying things were broken when they worked just fine and then selling them off for high profits. Likely this ended up on 60 minutes and so now there is a large wasteful government agency to prevent this. No the system isn't perfect but believe it or not often it evolved in a certain way for a reason.
Anyway you can go to gsaauctions.gov to get where the federal government eventually auctions its stuff off, or you can contact your state to see where they auction their stuff off. Want to get a slightly used crown vic that was once a tricked out FBI police car? gsaauctions.gov will let you bid on one. As well as a lot of other junk that no other agency wants and has been locked in a big room for a while. Actually the GSA takes really good care of their cars and you can get things like fleet cars that run on natural gas (if you are into that sort of thing.) You can also get all sorts of used computer and maybe nasa junk.
And that he runs off of batteries!
What do you mean there will eventually be a shortage of food? There is a shortage of food right now!
In the US it just means higher food prices (although if food starts getting really expensive here it could hurt the already battered middle class in this country.)
In some places around the world it has meant food riots and shortages. I read a story recently about it getting difficult if not impossible to find things like butter even in rich Japan. There have been protests in Mexico because of the rising price of corn for a while now (the increase in price of corn is largely due to US producers making corn for fuel instead of food.) Recently more countries have been having demonstrations about the rising price of food. For much of the world a large increase in food prices means one thing: starvation!
There are other things at work pushing up the prices of food but one thing that is doing it is ethanol linking the price of food with the price of gasoline.
If you can make gas out of non-edible biomass then that is one thing but IMO making fuel out of edible crops is just stupid.
We have gotten used to food being cheap in this country and have forgotten what a blessing it is. Our biggest problem with food now is obesity. Some of us have no idea how lucky we are.