The only relation I can think of is that radiation is absorbed as energy (heat) and the temperature change depends on heat capacity of the substance. That's what I've meant by "meaningless coeficient in the final result" in my above post. But even if greenhouse gases had completely different heat capacity, it still wouldn't change anything about greenhouse effect.
The definition of "reliable" is quite different for meteorologists and for climate scientists. Sure, meteorologists need very accurate measurements. But climate scientist don't care about absolute values. It doesn't matter that one dataset (or even all of them) is offset by 5 degrees as long as the distortion is consistent over long periods of time. Consistent distortions won't change the trend. And even if it's not consistent, you can reconstruct history of distortions using data from nearby monitoring stations. Then you can simply subtract these distortions and get more accurate data.
One: The term "heat capacity" doesn't appear even once in the video and you still have no idea what the term means. Two: Is a clip from Futurama featuring Al Gore really the best shot you have, Mr. "chemist who does materials science work"?
You realize that lower heat capacity means that the compound actually heats up faster? Even if you were right that heat capacity was a significant factor in greenhouse effect (which it isn't, it's just a meaningless coeficient in the final result), you'd still be completely wrong about lower heat capacity of CO2 disproving global warming.
I won't define either of those things because there's no meaningful definition for them in this context. But I'll give you a definition of statistical significance: First, you choose a null hypothesis, in this case for example "temperature trend in time interval X is strictly positive (that is, there is measurable increase in temperature)". Then you gather data and calculate the trend. And then you calculate the probability that null hypothesis is false (that is, the temperature trend being less than or equal to zero). If the trend you calculated is positive and the probability of error is less than 5% (or 1% or 0.5%, the smaller, the better), you can accept the null hypothesis as correct and the result is statistically significant. If the calculated trend is zero or negative and the probability of null hypothesis being wrong is 95% or more, you can dismiss null hypothesis as incorrect and the result is again statistically significant. In other cases, the result is inconclusive no matter what trend you calculated. Statistical significance means that there is very small probability that your conclusions are wrong. Apologies to real experts on statistics for any mistake in this post.
Dude, you have no idea what "statistically significant" means. There's no such thing as "statistically significant for given time period". You either have enough data and the result is statistically significant period, or you don't and it's not. BTW, "climate" is defined as "30 year average of weather".
And yes, I do see a contradiction. That is, idiots talking as if ten years of data mean anything in climate science. I also see idiots talking as if thirty years of data means anything in climate science. This is classic timeframe picking, and both sides are guilty of it.
Get a clue about statistics, would you? When a trend is statistically significant in given time period, it's not timeframe picking.
The last decade was simultaneously the hottest on record, and we did not see a warming trend. Clearly we need more money for our research.
There is no contradiction. If you take sufficiently short period of time, you can find any temperature trend you want in climate data. If you want statistically significant temperature trend, you need at least 15 years worth of data, maybe more.
and have yet to receive an adequate answer as to why CO2 is supposed to cause warming, when the heat capacity is actually slightly lower than the average heat capacity of the atmosphere.
Heat capacity has nothing to do with greenhouse effect. Radiation absorption characteristics is what matters. Real chemist would know that. But you're probably just another denier who's learned a fancy "sciencey" term but has no idea what it stands for.
Yeah, right. Roberta Williams was SO interested in copyright protection when she made the first KQ game in 1983. Copyright doesn't matter unless you invest millions of dollar into development. And that didn't happen in videogame market until early/mid 90s.
That's why it took so horribly long for Linux to finally have a GUI that's not just lip service, where the GUI tools offer at best a fraction of the underlying CLI programs.
When CLI doesn't offer better functionality than GUI, it means that the CLI sucks. CLI is by definition significantly more powerful than GUI can ever be. Sure, GUI may be easier to use for one-off tasks but it utterly fails when it comes to automation.
When the "artist" is satisfied with what he created, he'll stop. Whether you are satisfied doesn't really matter.
And copyright is what prevents others from continuing the work from where the artist stopped. Culture isn't about individual artists each starting from scratch. It doesn't work that way. It can't work that way. Culture has always been about millions of artists each adding to others' work. Copyright seriously breaks the system for everybody but a handful of corporations which "own" enough content to allow the creative process to work inside them.
The thing is, the existence of copyright in no way harmed these efforts, just like it doesn't harm fan produced films, free music or other types of free software.
Yeah, right. Except all those fan remake projects which were hit by cease & desist letters. Particularly King's Quest: The Silver Lining which was killed by Activision after 8 years of development when it was ready for release. No harm there, just 8 friggin' years of hard work all for nothing.
In a global environment, there is a problem when the US gets Drama episode Season 1 Episode 7 June 1, and the EU gets it Sept 17, 5 years later, with a shitty dubbing.
Yeah, right. Developed countries already have only about 60% of bare minimum natality required to maintain stable population. Let's make the problem even worse.
This idea has two major flaws: 1) USB port usually doesn't have any holes into the case and 2) active cooling will blow the gas out of the case too quickly even if you could inject it into the case through USB port. At best, you could burn a few inches of plastic around the port itself but the gas won't stay at explosive concentration inside the case long enough to do more damage than that.
Jojin and HedgeHog from Bugemos.com made a comic strip about this 2 weeks ago. And it's not their first comic strip prophecy which turned out to be true.
So? Coding isn't programming either. There's only so much you can learn about programming without diving into the theory behind it. I know that from personal experience. I've started learning coding from books and by hacking together simple programs when I was 10 years old. But taking a CS degree still made a huge difference in the quality of my code.
For comparison, here's English->Czech->English of the original text:
I agree. Google Translate works great, especially between the Romance and Germanic jazycích.Z Chinese to English has some hiccups, but it works quite well be functional. I do not think I had to use other languages, but I would expect similar functionality.
We sometimes Douglas Adam Babel Fish? I'm sure something will be pretty close, like Google Translate Android applications in real time, or something like that - it would enter what has been said over the phone microphone and headphone output translation. Vonnegut is a similar device in his novel Galapagos. As I've said many times about Kurzweil: sci-fi writers know as much as possible.
Language notes:
"jazycích" is the plural locative case of "jazyk" meaning "language". GT failed to translate this word back to English.
The correct translation of "between Romance and Germanic languages" would be "mezi románskými a germánskými jazyky", a plural instrumental case of both adjectives and the following noun. However, GT translates it using plural locative case ("mezi románských a germánských jazycích") which is grammatically wrong to the point of gibberish. Note that the incorrect grammatical case of adjectives is lost in translation back to English.
The "Z" in "Z Chinese" is Czech preposition meaning "from", another failed translation back.
"Hiccups" is translated as "skytavka" (the "s" in "skytavka" should have a caron, but/. can't save that character) which does mean hiccups but only in its biological sense, not in the idiomatic sense used here.
The "but it works quite well be functional" is also complete gibberish in Czech, it's a word for word translation in both ways.
The "I don't think I've had to use it with any other languages, but I would expect similar functionality." was translated incorrectly in both ways but in different ways. In English->Czech, the only mistake was that "I don't think" should have been translated as "I don't remember" and the pronoun "it" from "use it with" was incorrectly dropped. In Czech->English, the preposition "with" which was still present in the Czech text was also dropped completely changing the meaning.
The Czech translation of "Will we ever have Douglas Adam's Babel Fish?" is complete gibberish. The translation back doesn't make it much worse.
In the next sentence, the verb "get" is incorrectly dropped in Czech translation. The rest of the sentence after dash is word-for-word gibberish in Czech.
In the next sentence, the verb "had" was incorrectly dropped.
The next sentence is translated correctly up to the colon, the rest is gibberish in Czech.
Translation between Slavic and Germanic/Romance languages is still lacking.
pshaaah right. A drastic change in the Sun's activity is unlikely to even affect the climate at all? Gore, is that you? Theriously, is it?
Drastic? Do you have any idea how insignificant is the fluctuation of Sun's power output during solar cycles compared to its total power output? I guess not.
This is why I am not surprised when unpaid volunteer scientists find such huge mistakes in published respectable research.
And I'm even less surprised when it turns out that this unpaid volunteer actually couldn't tell a real mistake in published research from his own lack of basic math skills even if it kicked him in the face. Do you have any idea how many "unpaid volunteer scientists" out there claim that General Relativity is a conspiracy of paid scientists and it's all a big load of bull when in fact real scientists have been measuring its effects for almost a century now and pretty much anyone can do the same with the right equipment?
It is frustrating that people understand that a CO2 producing company will be unlikely to produce truthful research on the effects of C02 on climate, but meanwhile will swallow anything NASA, NOAA, IPCC or other research bodies claim.
Look, climate research isn't just NASA, NOAA and IPCC. It's thousands of scientists throughout the world who have nothing to do with those organizations gathering data and doing real research. If you don't trust any of them, fine. Get a calibrated thermometer, have it recalibrated every year and take your own measurements for at least 15 years. Then you can open the same can of statistical whoopass scientists use on their data and see for yourself. Data from one location will say absolutely nothing about global trends but chances are that your data will align perfectly with either the global trend or at least data sets used in calculation of global trends that were taken near your location during the same time period.
Or to put it another way; Bitcoins currently resemble comic books or stock certificates more than they do money - they're carriers of value (within the system) rather than having value (within the system) in and of themselves. (Note: I did not say inherent value, that's a different theoretical kettle of fish.) You can't exchange them directly for goods and services, but must exchange them for conventional money first.
Which is also true of any national currency when you leave the area where this currency is officially accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
The only relation I can think of is that radiation is absorbed as energy (heat) and the temperature change depends on heat capacity of the substance. That's what I've meant by "meaningless coeficient in the final result" in my above post. But even if greenhouse gases had completely different heat capacity, it still wouldn't change anything about greenhouse effect.
The definition of "reliable" is quite different for meteorologists and for climate scientists. Sure, meteorologists need very accurate measurements. But climate scientist don't care about absolute values. It doesn't matter that one dataset (or even all of them) is offset by 5 degrees as long as the distortion is consistent over long periods of time. Consistent distortions won't change the trend. And even if it's not consistent, you can reconstruct history of distortions using data from nearby monitoring stations. Then you can simply subtract these distortions and get more accurate data.
One: The term "heat capacity" doesn't appear even once in the video and you still have no idea what the term means. Two: Is a clip from Futurama featuring Al Gore really the best shot you have, Mr. "chemist who does materials science work"?
You realize that lower heat capacity means that the compound actually heats up faster? Even if you were right that heat capacity was a significant factor in greenhouse effect (which it isn't, it's just a meaningless coeficient in the final result), you'd still be completely wrong about lower heat capacity of CO2 disproving global warming.
I won't define either of those things because there's no meaningful definition for them in this context. But I'll give you a definition of statistical significance: First, you choose a null hypothesis, in this case for example "temperature trend in time interval X is strictly positive (that is, there is measurable increase in temperature)". Then you gather data and calculate the trend. And then you calculate the probability that null hypothesis is false (that is, the temperature trend being less than or equal to zero). If the trend you calculated is positive and the probability of error is less than 5% (or 1% or 0.5%, the smaller, the better), you can accept the null hypothesis as correct and the result is statistically significant. If the calculated trend is zero or negative and the probability of null hypothesis being wrong is 95% or more, you can dismiss null hypothesis as incorrect and the result is again statistically significant. In other cases, the result is inconclusive no matter what trend you calculated. Statistical significance means that there is very small probability that your conclusions are wrong. Apologies to real experts on statistics for any mistake in this post.
Dude, you have no idea what "statistically significant" means. There's no such thing as "statistically significant for given time period". You either have enough data and the result is statistically significant period, or you don't and it's not. BTW, "climate" is defined as "30 year average of weather".
And yes, I do see a contradiction. That is, idiots talking as if ten years of data mean anything in climate science. I also see idiots talking as if thirty years of data means anything in climate science. This is classic timeframe picking, and both sides are guilty of it.
Get a clue about statistics, would you? When a trend is statistically significant in given time period, it's not timeframe picking.
The last decade was simultaneously the hottest on record, and we did not see a warming trend. Clearly we need more money for our research.
There is no contradiction. If you take sufficiently short period of time, you can find any temperature trend you want in climate data. If you want statistically significant temperature trend, you need at least 15 years worth of data, maybe more.
and have yet to receive an adequate answer as to why CO2 is supposed to cause warming, when the heat capacity is actually slightly lower than the average heat capacity of the atmosphere.
Heat capacity has nothing to do with greenhouse effect. Radiation absorption characteristics is what matters. Real chemist would know that. But you're probably just another denier who's learned a fancy "sciencey" term but has no idea what it stands for.
Even trees get full.
Yeah, right. Roberta Williams was SO interested in copyright protection when she made the first KQ game in 1983. Copyright doesn't matter unless you invest millions of dollar into development. And that didn't happen in videogame market until early/mid 90s.
That's why it took so horribly long for Linux to finally have a GUI that's not just lip service, where the GUI tools offer at best a fraction of the underlying CLI programs.
When CLI doesn't offer better functionality than GUI, it means that the CLI sucks. CLI is by definition significantly more powerful than GUI can ever be. Sure, GUI may be easier to use for one-off tasks but it utterly fails when it comes to automation.
When the "artist" is satisfied with what he created, he'll stop. Whether you are satisfied doesn't really matter.
And copyright is what prevents others from continuing the work from where the artist stopped. Culture isn't about individual artists each starting from scratch. It doesn't work that way. It can't work that way. Culture has always been about millions of artists each adding to others' work. Copyright seriously breaks the system for everybody but a handful of corporations which "own" enough content to allow the creative process to work inside them.
http://www.libertes-internets.net/archives/images/piracy-full.jpg
The thing is, the existence of copyright in no way harmed these efforts, just like it doesn't harm fan produced films, free music or other types of free software.
Yeah, right. Except all those fan remake projects which were hit by cease & desist letters. Particularly King's Quest: The Silver Lining which was killed by Activision after 8 years of development when it was ready for release. No harm there, just 8 friggin' years of hard work all for nothing.
In a global environment, there is a problem when the US gets Drama episode Season 1 Episode 7 June 1, and the EU gets it Sept 17, 5 years later, with a shitty dubbing.
FTFY
Yeah, right. Developed countries already have only about 60% of bare minimum natality required to maintain stable population. Let's make the problem even worse.
This idea has two major flaws: 1) USB port usually doesn't have any holes into the case and 2) active cooling will blow the gas out of the case too quickly even if you could inject it into the case through USB port. At best, you could burn a few inches of plastic around the port itself but the gas won't stay at explosive concentration inside the case long enough to do more damage than that.
USB stick is more than big enough for an explosion which will blow your fingers off.
Jojin and HedgeHog from Bugemos.com made a comic strip about this 2 weeks ago. And it's not their first comic strip prophecy which turned out to be true.
So? Coding isn't programming either. There's only so much you can learn about programming without diving into the theory behind it. I know that from personal experience. I've started learning coding from books and by hacking together simple programs when I was 10 years old. But taking a CS degree still made a huge difference in the quality of my code.
I guess Harold Zoid's career is over then...
Language notes:
Translation between Slavic and Germanic/Romance languages is still lacking.
pshaaah right. A drastic change in the Sun's activity is unlikely to even affect the climate at all? Gore, is that you? Theriously, is it?
Drastic? Do you have any idea how insignificant is the fluctuation of Sun's power output during solar cycles compared to its total power output? I guess not.
This is why I am not surprised when unpaid volunteer scientists find such huge mistakes in published respectable research.
And I'm even less surprised when it turns out that this unpaid volunteer actually couldn't tell a real mistake in published research from his own lack of basic math skills even if it kicked him in the face. Do you have any idea how many "unpaid volunteer scientists" out there claim that General Relativity is a conspiracy of paid scientists and it's all a big load of bull when in fact real scientists have been measuring its effects for almost a century now and pretty much anyone can do the same with the right equipment?
It is frustrating that people understand that a CO2 producing company will be unlikely to produce truthful research on the effects of C02 on climate, but meanwhile will swallow anything NASA, NOAA, IPCC or other research bodies claim.
Look, climate research isn't just NASA, NOAA and IPCC. It's thousands of scientists throughout the world who have nothing to do with those organizations gathering data and doing real research. If you don't trust any of them, fine. Get a calibrated thermometer, have it recalibrated every year and take your own measurements for at least 15 years. Then you can open the same can of statistical whoopass scientists use on their data and see for yourself. Data from one location will say absolutely nothing about global trends but chances are that your data will align perfectly with either the global trend or at least data sets used in calculation of global trends that were taken near your location during the same time period.
Or to put it another way; Bitcoins currently resemble comic books or stock certificates more than they do money - they're carriers of value (within the system) rather than having value (within the system) in and of themselves. (Note: I did not say inherent value, that's a different theoretical kettle of fish.) You can't exchange them directly for goods and services, but must exchange them for conventional money first.
Which is also true of any national currency when you leave the area where this currency is officially accepted.