I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who claims the climate isn't changing.
Oh yeah? Never heard "Warming stopped in...fill in the year..."?
"Reasonable" skeptics often start by saying "you'll be hard pressed to find..." but then some utter loon comes along and says shit like "the greenhouse effect doesn't exist - it's agains the laws of thermodynamics".
Well lets see, on the left, more money might flow into their coffers if the scientist's position justified a succession of environmental taxes. On the right, if a scientist's findings support, or at least called into question the research supporting global warming, he'd probably get funding from exxon and co.
Given that the funding "from exxon and co" exists where are the scientists "calling into question the research supporting global warming"?
You seem to spend all your time arguing from your political position without looking at the facts. Maybe this is why you so clearly misunderstand how scientists and science work.
I think perhaps the surprising thing is that given the search parameters (such as terms that are now highly politically tinged like "global warming") and given AGW is absolutely the easiest way to get funding today as an kind of academic who remotely deals with environmental issues, is that there were as many "no stand on AGW" responses as there were.
If the facts don't match your preconceptions then there are two possibilities:
1. the facts are wrong 2. you are wrong.
Maybe "AGW is absolutely the easiest way to get funding today as an kind of academic who remotely deals with environmental issues" is a misunderstanding of how science, scientists and funding works?
- It can't be us, we are to insignificant. Climate change is caused by increased solar activity and oceans releasing vast amounts of CO2;
I think you're being unkind to the the skeptics here - only the dumbest of them would say " Climate change is caused by increased solar activity" when it's pretty clear there is no increased solar activity.
As for "oceans releasing vast amounts of CO2" that ties in rather poorly with increasing ocean acidification, and if CO2 released by the oceans causes warming why doesn't CO2 released by us?
The usual "skeptic" argument is "it's natural". If you ask for more details they'll mutter something about "rebound from little ice age" or "cycles".
Maybe you should go back and start reading this conversation from the beginning.
Also. remember the context. We're talking about network connectivity in Africa.
The original contention, by an AC was that since you need wires to get the electricty to the point of use you could use wires to get the internet connecivity.
The second AC chimed in saying "and wireless power ain't going to happen". (Heading off the Tesla nuts at the pass).
I pointed out that solar power could be seen as wireless, i.e. someone could have solar electricty without being hooked up to the power grid. Don't forget the context - Africa, remember?
You, Lukyo, made a totaly pointless contribution, claiming that there was a wire between the solar panel and the point of use.
I pointed out that there is also a wire between the antenna of a wireless phone and the radio, but that is irellevant when we're talking about riding hogs to work.
And you chime back in with more irellevant nonsense about exercise bikes (just the thing after a long day in the field) and diesel generators.
Which still doesn't explain how you ride a hog to work when you have no hog.
Lots of cellphone towers have microwave links for backhaul (in 2009 it was 48% worldwide, a hell of a lot more than that in Africa for all the well known reasons).
. but those links are going to have to home back to another tower that is fiber or copper fed.
Well yes, eventually, but one fibre or copper fed tower can provive backhaul for a bunch of towers connected by microwaves, and microwave connected towers can be connected to other microwave connected towers.
Even then you are hurting your ability to run LTE base stations at those microwave towers.
What do those remote phones connect to? They have to have a wired infrastructure out to the access points. We can't even get good mobile service in rural US.
Nope, cell towers are often (almost always?) hooked up with microwave links,
Actually, do you know which country in Africa has the cheapest cell phone providers?
Somalia.
That dates from 2005, I mean the article ends:
And then there is Somalia itself. From a distance it looks like a free-market nirvana after The Economist's heart; but closer up it better resembles an armed oligarchy, capable of taking anything it wants at the point of a gun—even a Nokia handset.
Seriously? A Nokia handset?
So, how is the great Somalian cellphone revoultion doing today?
My experience in the Ivory Coast was that I could rarely get a working 3G data connection in the more populous parts of Abidjan (Koumassi for example), but it worked ok in more upscale areas (Zone 4).
Out near the Liberian border (around Binhouye) I got an amazingly good EDGE signal - slowish data rates of course but incredibly reliable. I was probably the only person using mobile internet for 10's or even 100s of km.
Of course that was last year so everything has probably completely changed since then.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the fact none of the models match the current temperature trends? None of them. Any explanation for that?
What none of them ?
Well, no. In fact it turns out to be possible to match current behaviour with models.
Kosaka and Xie (2013, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature12534)
I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who claims the climate isn't changing.
Oh yeah? Never heard "Warming stopped in ...fill in the year..."?
"Reasonable" skeptics often start by saying "you'll be hard pressed to find..." but then some utter loon comes along and says shit like "the greenhouse effect doesn't exist - it's agains the laws of thermodynamics".
flood plain, not plane.
"As a matter of interest, at what stage did you accept that smoking was carcinogenic, as an indisputable fact, proven beyond all reasonable doubt?"
When the EVIDENCE, not the media or organizations with an agenda, said so.
And when was that?
I've been looking at BOTH sides of the argument. And your "side" (i.e., that "climate change" is human-caused) is not winning.
Your whole problem is that you thing this is an "argument" with "sides" that can "win".
No, there is an external reality. It is not all in your head.
You can live in an apartment in Somalia while you do it, if that helps (bring guns!).
Nope. Guns will get you nowhere in an environment like Somalia.
You want to bring gunmen, not guns.
Well lets see, on the left, more money might flow into their coffers if the scientist's position justified a succession of environmental taxes. On the right, if a scientist's findings support, or at least called into question the research supporting global warming, he'd probably get funding from exxon and co.
Given that the funding "from exxon and co" exists where are the scientists "calling into question the research supporting global warming"?
You seem to spend all your time arguing from your political position without looking at the facts. Maybe this is why you so clearly misunderstand how scientists and science work.
For example, your link points to a government funded organization. That's as biased as a study funded by exxon.
Uh, no it isn't.
Please reduce your paranoia dial while posting in public.
Once all or most scientists were republicans.
Now almost all of them are democrats.
What changed? The scientists or the political parties?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56795477-90/science-scientists-gop-http.html.csp
I think perhaps the surprising thing is that given the search parameters (such as terms that are now highly politically tinged like "global warming") and given AGW is absolutely the easiest way to get funding today as an kind of academic who remotely deals with environmental issues, is that there were as many "no stand on AGW" responses as there were.
If the facts don't match your preconceptions then there are two possibilities:
1. the facts are wrong
2. you are wrong.
Maybe "AGW is absolutely the easiest way to get funding today as an kind of academic who remotely deals with environmental issues" is a misunderstanding of how science, scientists and funding works?
- It can't be us, we are to insignificant. Climate change is caused by increased solar activity and oceans releasing vast amounts of CO2;
I think you're being unkind to the the skeptics here - only the dumbest of them would say " Climate change is caused by increased solar activity" when it's pretty clear there is no increased solar activity.
As for "oceans releasing vast amounts of CO2" that ties in rather poorly with increasing ocean acidification, and if CO2 released by the oceans causes warming why doesn't CO2 released by us?
The usual "skeptic" argument is "it's natural". If you ask for more details they'll mutter something about "rebound from little ice age" or "cycles".
I advocate a full Nuclear Strike; It makes as much sense as everything else.
I like the way you don't specify what should be struck.
I suggest Washington - it's the only place a strike could make a difference.
Pinochet and his cronies became unable to tell the difference between innocents who disagreed with government policy, and actual Stalinists.
Became unable?
There were no "Stalinists" in the first place, merely a mildly left wing socialist government with neat cybernetic chairs.
But to actually use it, you need wires.
Maybe you should go back and start reading this conversation from the beginning.
Also. remember the context. We're talking about network connectivity in Africa.
The original contention, by an AC was that since you need wires to get the electricty to the point of use you could use wires to get the internet connecivity.
The second AC chimed in saying "and wireless power ain't going to happen". (Heading off the Tesla nuts at the pass).
I pointed out that solar power could be seen as wireless, i.e. someone could have solar electricty without being hooked up to the power grid. Don't forget the context - Africa, remember?
You, Lukyo, made a totaly pointless contribution, claiming that there was a wire between the solar panel and the point of use.
I pointed out that there is also a wire between the antenna of a wireless phone and the radio, but that is irellevant when we're talking about riding hogs to work.
And you chime back in with more irellevant nonsense about exercise bikes (just the thing after a long day in the field) and diesel generators.
Which still doesn't explain how you ride a hog to work when you have no hog.
Some towers can be microwave links,
Lots of cellphone towers have microwave links for backhaul (in 2009 it was 48% worldwide, a hell of a lot more than that in Africa for all the well known reasons).
. but those links are going to have to home back to another tower that is fiber or copper fed.
Well yes, eventually, but one fibre or copper fed tower can provive backhaul for a bunch of towers connected by microwaves, and microwave connected towers can be connected to other microwave connected towers.
Even then you are hurting your ability to run LTE base stations at those microwave towers.
LTE?
Wait untill 3G is working.
Now we just need to find a way to get the $20,000 for solar panel installation to each of these dirt poor people, and then the problem is solved.
'cos one tiny little solar panel costs $20k
Hint - a solar panel in an African village wouldn't be for running a airconditioner.
Yes, and tiny little wires inside the cellphone.
But the point is it is possible to have electricty without wires coming in to your house from some central power generation facility.
So there may be no hog to ride.
Did you?
Thought not.
What do those remote phones connect to? They have to have a wired infrastructure out to the access points. We can't even get good mobile service in rural US.
Nope, cell towers are often (almost always?) hooked up with microwave links,
Please show me the generic cheap tablets that were available when OLPC started (2005).
"Let them use Nokia 770's".
Actually, do you know which country in Africa has the cheapest cell phone providers?
Somalia.
That dates from 2005, I mean the article ends:
And then there is Somalia itself. From a distance it looks like a free-market nirvana after The Economist's heart; but closer up it better resembles an armed oligarchy, capable of taking anything it wants at the point of a gun—even a Nokia handset.
Seriously? A Nokia handset?
So, how is the great Somalian cellphone revoultion doing today?
So, if you're not forgetting them you know where they are, right?
How many African countries currently have serious unrest, how many don't?
hat may be the case, since wireless power will never happen
Tell that to the people using solar power.
No wires between the sun and the panels.
Right, there's no profit to providing the internet to rural areas therefore no one will do it.
But there is profit providing telephone services.
And these days whenever someone hooks up a cell tower the internet comes more or less by accident.
My experience in the Ivory Coast was that I could rarely get a working 3G data connection in the more populous parts of Abidjan (Koumassi for example), but it worked ok in more upscale areas (Zone 4).
Out near the Liberian border (around Binhouye) I got an amazingly good EDGE signal - slowish data rates of course but incredibly reliable. I was probably the only person using mobile internet for 10's or even 100s of km.
Of course that was last year so everything has probably completely changed since then.