You really think the consumers didn't already know??
"Early adopters" my ass. They're probably employees of RIAA and friends and family of same. Maybe being reimbursed. I don't know anyone who pays for music anymore, period.
Please, you think consumers felt bad about getting free music from Napster, and later from Gnutella or wherever else? After paying $15+ per CD and spending over $6000 on CDs in the last decade and a half you think I'm particularly concerned if I now get some "free" music? Free? Believe me, I've ALREADY paid for it.
In any case, the only proof we have that pay-to-download services are rising in popularlity is that they say so. I don't know anyone who has even tried them, let alone whipped out their credit card instead of powering up BearShare...
"Pay" music services are a tax on stupid people that don't know how or where to get software that lets them do it for free.
News flash: "In a change of generally accepted economic theory, in the year 2002 consumers started voluntarily paying more than they had to for a product. In fact, in possibly a first in history, consumers have chosen to pay for something that was available for free."
Yeah, right. I see they have Bill Clinton's spin doctors on the job at the RIAA now.:)
Turn off the music of the game and listen to what you want to listen to. I've never understood, since Doom, why there is music. Give me sound effects... leave the music (if I want it) to me...
Re:If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why would I want my game machine to rip MP3 (or WMA), or play my MP3s in certain games? Or use my game machine as a DVD player? It's a game machine, not a PC. I'll listen to MP3s on my stereo or computer, and watch DVDs on (gasp) my DVD player.
The thing is, when you are Microsoft with a monopoly-built legacy operating system, everything looks like a "blank" PC. And if that blank PC doesn't have a hard drive, damn it, we're going to add one so that we can stuff our OS on it.:)
The problem with tagging all commercial email with an identifier such as "ADV:" is that most recipients will simply create an email rule to auto-delete it and never even know it arrived.
I go one step better. My sendmail server hangs up on the SMTP connection as soon as it finds ADV: in the subject line of an incoming message. They don't even get to finish unloading their message. As soon as it says ADV:, they're gone.
That's great for the recipients, but it does nothing to reduce the load on ISP servers; in fact, it may increase it as the advertisers will have to send out MORE mail to make sure at least somebody opens it.
More ISPs can do what I'm doing and hang-up as soon as they see ADV: in the subject.
In the short term it doesn't solve the problem, but when absolutely no-one is reading spam then the response rate will drop to zero--at that point there will be no-one that WANTS to spam.
Also, such a solution does nothing to help legitimate advertisers, who need to know the demographics of who is actually reading their ad.
What is a "legitimate advertiser?" Anyone that is mailboming advertisements to me isn't legitimate regardless of whether they are selling penis cream or Norton products (seems to be the latest thing I've seen in spam) or discount airfares.
If there is an easy way to filter, they may buy a list that is 90% middle class professional office workers, but they have no way of telling what mix actually read their ad.
I also don't care if an advertiser "needs" to know if I read their advertisement. That's none of their business. They have no clue who reads their advertisements in a newspaper nor who hangs around during commercials on TVs... Why do they suddenly "need" to know if I click their email?
So they would never buy a service that operated under the "ADV" rules
Good! The idea isn't that the whole world does bombing runs with ADV:. The idea is that the ADV makes it so easy to filter that NO-ONE reads the spam and, in short order, spam as a method of advertising goes away.
Result: only the scam companies would ever send the mail.
Which is MOSTLY the case now. This is where the bounty comes in... If you get spam that isn't identified with ADV, the spammer has broken the law and under the law you're entitled to $10k from the spammer if you are the first to identify him. A few of those and the scam companies will stop sending spam because it's no longer a good business model. So "legitimate" companies don't spam because all their spam is filtered with ADV, and "illegal" spammers stop doing it because they'll be liable for $10k.
Of course, the idea won't work. As others have said, it's too easy to frame an innocent person or company. Unless the spammer shows you his email log, how can you really "prove" he did it? You could just be making up the logfile that shows a conection from 192.110.121.99, or whatever.
The problem is that most spam isn't prosecuted based on other violations of the law. Porn spam should be blatantly illegal since much of it goes directly to the inbox of minors. The owners of porn sites that spam should be sought out by the FBI and charged with corruption of minors. Most of the rest of the spam is fraudulent or deceptive in some way--it should be prosecuted by the FTC or FDA. The problem is they apparently don't have time, which is sad since it's currently one of the largest sources of blatant fraud operating in broad daylight, and so many of them would be open and shut cases. You just have to go get the perpetrator.
Either that or stop checking their email. I'd bet they'd stop checking their email before they took to the streets with pitchforks. Probably even before calling their senator.
Those that still recommend (or fear) outsourcing code to India are, I suspect, people who have never actually done it.
Do it once and see if you really do it again. It's a hassle to manage, there is a severe time zone problem, and a tendency for all work to come in late and way over budget.
You get what you pay for. I know at least two companies that were severely burned outsourcing to India. They actually lost money on the deals. One never got a working product after burning through a million dollars; the other got a semi-working product (i.e, not exactly what they had in mind) but it came in so far over budget that they believe it would have been cheaper to do it at home and would have been closer to what they really wanted.
As others have said, outsourcing to other countries is best for no-brain tasks such as converting legacy Cobol code to a more modern platform. They can see the old product, see the code, and make the new program do the same thing.
Outsourcing to other countries--especially in other time zones or with spoken language incompatabilities--projects that require feedback, customer interaction in definition, etc. are very, very poor candidates for outsourcing. These are the most interesting and high-paying jobs and they'll be staying here.
So unless you enjoy doing grunt work converting Cobol to C++ or Java, don't worry.
Well, I had satellite for about 8 months last year, and only lost it once when a powerful storm blew through. When the storm was over, I had satellite back... everyone with cable had to wait for several days, though.
I guess it depends where you live. I don't have satellite Internet--I have a 56k dial-up. But my DirectTV tends to go out on stormy, rainy nights... just about the time you want to cuddle with your wife with some TV in the background. It's been enough that we've almost decided to go with cable TV just to avoid that problem.
We can discuss which is better and which is worse, which is faster and which is slower, etc. until the cows come home. The fact is, a HUGE number of websites and organizations use MySQL because it does the job it needs to do.
I know companies that have been Microsoft shops since 1985 that are currently migrating from VB/SQLServer to PHP/MySQL because 1) VB is slow and you always have install problems with DLLs/OCXs, etc. 2) SQLServer is big, fat, and ugly. Overkill, 3) expensive, 4) subject to Microsoft's oppresive licensing and "forced" upgrades (which means spending more money).
The companies I know are moving to PHP/MySQL in their effort, quite literally, to ditch Microsoft. Which is amazing since they've been Microsoft shops. The good news is that these aren't open source geeks with an agenda. These are very practical companies doing what works best for them... and at least one of them has been a Microsoft shop since 1985. They've finished the first phase of ditching SQL Server for MySQL, so they won't be paying any more licenses their (nor will their customers). Next to go is VB.
Microsoft (and IBM) can throw out all the FUD they want. Actions speak louder than words, and the fact is that MySQL is one of the most popular databases for websites and, recently, serious commercial organizations are adopting it. And they are saving money. And that worries MS and IBM. After all, stories are being published quite routinely that mention Yahoo switching to MySQL, Amazon (?) saving money by switching OS, etc--how many stories do you really see that say, "We switched to DB2 or SQL Server and are saving millions of dollars!"
As for others in the open source community that diss MySQL, that's just a matter of religion. The internal bickering in the open source community hasn't helped the open source community gain respectibility. Competition is good, even within open-source, and it's sad that some people in the community reduce it to arguments along the lines of "mine is bigger than yours, want to see?"
then the subscriber had to pay for incoming calls, which lead to less willingness to give out your phone number, which lead to the uncommon situation of Europe getting a lead over the US in a matter of driving technology adaption.
Hmm, is that really it? Perhaps, but the reason I tend not to give out my cell phone # is because I don't want people bothering me. Cell phone plans in the U.S. have more minutes per month than I can use so price really isn't a factor. In fact, it's better for the consumer that way: I have "bulk" number of minutes and no-one has to pay to talk to me since I have more minutes than I need.
I personally prefer a single numbering system. I currently live in Mexico which used to have a U.S.-style cellular system where the subscriber paid. A couple years ago they changed to a European "caller pays" scheme. I hate it. Now, even though my plan only has 50 minutes per month included, I *never* use them all. And every person that calls me has to pay 40 cents per minute. So the minutes "included" in my plan are never used and *everyone* has to pay to talk to me. The winners are the local cell companies.
What I liked about the U.S. system is it used to be that wherever you were, you knew a local number required dialing 7 digits and a long distance call required dialing a 1 + area code + 7 digits. That's all you had to know. Unfortunately, even that's been bastardized in the U.S. now. Some areas still use 7-digit local calling, some have grown to two area codes so you need to dial a 3 digit area code plus the 7-digit local call even though it's still free.
All in all, the U.S. telephone numbering system used to be elegant in its simplicity and the same scheme applied nationwide. That has been lost... but I still like knowing all area codes are 3 digits and all numbers are 7 digits.
Not like the rest of the world where a "city" code may be 1-4 digits and the local number may be 5-8 digits. There's so little consistency you can't even tell if you have a valid phone number.
U.S. Numbering System: Let's make all area codes 3 digits long and all "local" numbers 7 digits long. A full phone number will always be 10 digits long.
Worldwide Numbering System: Let's make country codes that vary from 1-3 digits in length, let's make city codes that vary from 1-4 digits in length, and local numbers that vary from 4-8 digits in length. A full phone number will always have between 1 and 30 digits.
One of my room mates does web design and graphic design. A lot of flash, fancy, dynamic HTML stuff. There is no way he could upload and download the large graphical files he is working on at an efficient speed over 56k.
You might want to tell your web design mate that if he cannot upload or download his large graphical files efficiently at 56k then the majority of the users that will be visiting his site can't either.
You haven't thoroughly tested a website until you've validated it at 56k since that's what most of the world has.
One thing that I try to impress upon people about broadband is that when you have it, you will do MORE than just check email once or twice a day, etc.
Yeah, but not MUCH more--since the trend now seems to be to cap your bandwidth or charge you even MORE if you are a "power use" that uses more than a GB per month. The power of broadband is its speed, but that power is greatly dimished if you use up your monthly allotment in the first 4 days of the month.
The fact is, broadband will not catch on while providers are trying to reduce the amount you can use it and raise prices. Many see dial-up as truly "unlimited use" whereas broadband is always on, but the more you use it the more you pay. People don't like that because it introduces uncertainty as to how much you're going to pay.
I used to manually report spam to Yahoo and the like. This closed a dozen or so accounts. Next I stepped up to SpamCop, which went further: they actually help to close open relays. Right now, I'm using Spam Assassin to filter my inbox. It became too time-consuming to forward each message to SpamCop.
Same here. I used to report spam. But there's too much of it now.
So I modified my sendmail to include some filters. What's different about my approach to standard spam filters is that my filters are applied during the DATA phase of the SMTP connection. So if spam is recognized the connection is immediately dropped. The spammer can't even finish dumping his load. Usually, the spammer tries and tries again.
I figure this is good because: 1) I never see the spam. 2) The spam is never successfully unloaded on my system. 3) The repeated attempts to deliver increases the time/cost for the spammer... or open relay.
It works great. Some spam still gets through, but much, much less and it quickly gets added to my filters.
Being in a rather defiant mood, instead of the real contents, I decided to list that the tapes contained the sources to all of the company's flagship products
Sounds like a neat way to say good-bye. But could come back to bite you if the source code to their flagship products ever found its way onto the Internet and they went back and see you signed off that you took them with you.
My policy is sign as little as possible. Always. In this case, if the company is going out of business anyway you might as well sign because they won't be around to sue later anyway, nor to sue you if you don't do what you agree to. But if the company is going to stick around I'd forego the severance pay.
After all, I was paid to do the work I did. In reality why should anyone feel entitled to severance pay? Sure, if the company is in a position to offer it then I think that's a nice gesture on the part of the company. But, in reality, I'd look at that as an "extra" that the company is under no obligation to pay.
OK - they will catch up at some point. The issue is where is that point? A degree and 100 years? 10 degrees and 1000 years? Or is the new equilibrium point similar to Venus?
I agree we don't know. It would seem logical, however, that considering the 6Gt of carbon we're adding to the environment is arguably less than 2% of the total produced (and consumed) by nature each year that the answer is most likely yes, and that it would tend to be on the lower side. Do I have facts to back that up? No, I don't.
What I would agree is that we should watch our carbon sinks. If we produce 6Gt to the atmosphere each year AND destroy carbon sinks I can admit to a problem. In that case I think the best solution would be to reduce destruction of the sinks since they're usually pretty and pleasant to camp in anyway.
An interesting example is that of North American forests - which were long touted as big carbon sinks. Well, now big forest fires are starting to return that carbon into the atmosphere.
And, *presto*, equilibrium. The problem, of course, is we started putting out forest fires which caused too much undergrowth in the forests. So when they burn now, they burn bad. The forests are still carbon sinks--granted, reduced in effectiveness until they regrow--but that is part of the natural cycle.
In short, the Earth will establish equilibrium. Whether that includes a large human population is open to debate - it certainly doesn't include large dinosaur populations. The point being that climate change has in the past wiped out species.
I don't think it is arrogant to say that we can adapt a little better than the dinosaurs.
Besides, I've heard certain evironmentalists say that we "need" to get to a 2 billion population which is suposedly sustainable. They've never said how they'd like to accomplish that. Perhaps a nice climate change to par down the population is just what we need. [I am being sarcastic, just in case it wasn't obvious].
Next you'll probably say either that we have to study the problem more before we act, or that the evil Chinese should act first since in the years to come they will produce more CO2.
Do I think we should improve fuel efficiency of cars? Yes. Do I think we ought to investigate solar power? Yes. Do I think we ought to use more nuclear energy which, when done right, is comparably clean? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea to turn off the lights when you're not using them? Yes.
Do I think we need mandatory caps on CO2 production? No. Do I think the developed world should reduce CO2 production while India and China, making up 2 billion people, are exempt? No.
So I will agree to a rational, measured response based on what we know now. But don't ask me to agree to massive social, political, or economic changes based on what we know now. We don't know enough. In that sense, YES, we need more research first.
Something will happen, and the best models seem to indicate rather unpleasant effects.
Perhaps, although the best models indicate less unpleasantness every time they are improved. With each improvement, the amount of unpleasantness approaches zero.
Do you have proof of this statement? I can recall a few announcements in the last couple of years where the estimates were revised upward, but it'll take time to find the references. In fact, the IPCC 2000 report (which is effectivly a summary of many, many models), revised their estimate upward from 1995. So I don't think your statement is true.
It is true, but I'd also have to go back and search for the references. I don't doubt that the IPCC revises their estimates upwards, they are a reactive group trying to stimulate action. It would be counterproductive to revise them downwards. But I have read quite a few stories since 1990, initially in newspapers and over the last few years, where the estimates have been revised downwards. I'll grant they don't get as much media attention.
I'll try to go back and find some links for ya.
That too is debatable. I take it you are referring to the West Antarctice ice sheet? There was a recent article in Science talking about how recent observations of ice dynamics (e.g. the recent Ross (?) ice shelf collapse) that seem to indicate that ice sheets can collapse very quickly with only small perturbations.
Again, I'd have to go back to the source to verify names. I'm not good with names unless I note them down--but I do remember text that said that the vast majority of ice in Antartica is built 2 miles thick on top of solid land. That ice isn't going anywhere--in fact, if anything it only gets thicker.
As for ice shelves, they come and go.
Seriously though, folks, if models and observations start indicating that is happening, we'll deal with it then. In the mean time, we shouldn't use such specious arguments to avoid dealing with a better known threat.
You see, you're being as open-minded as scientists that think they have the answer before they conduct the experiment. We're due for an ice age, in the 70's we were supposed to be on the verge of the ice age. Suddenly we're dealing with global warming??
I'm sorry, but as much as the thought of using CO2 production to avoid an ice age sounds like science fiction to you, so does global warming based on the miniscule amounts of CO2 we're producing sound like science fiction to me. If we can cause global warming by producing CO2, what is so far-feteched about that avoiding an ice age??
I think we could do more than we are, and we won't have viable alternatives until we start investing enough to bootstrap new technologies. In fact, very few modern technologies have been adpoted without large amount of initial government subsidy.
So let's subsidize them! I'm all for developing cleaner and cheaper energy, and I'd much rather spend my tax dollars researching new energy than paying scientists to come up with more doomsday predictions. Rather than spending money on predicting what might happen, why not spend the money on coming up with a solution that makes the other predictions completely irrelevant?
We hear about global warming because it is an observational fact, physically plausible, and of some concern globally. There is no vast conspiracy to "conceal the truth", intentional or not.
I'm not saying there is a vast conspiracy. I think it is a self-feeding phenomenon that many scientists cling too for funding and many politicians cling to for power grabs or furthering their personal visions for the world.
I think Kyoto is a perfect example of that. Will you agree that if you slap CO2 limits on developed countries but exempt developing countries that you will not reduce pollution, just move the sources of pollution to the developing countries? Given that, what was the purpose of Kyoto? Either to move the pollution out of our backyard into someone elses, or move our jobs to developing countries (wealth redistribution). But you will NOT improve the worldwide environment. So what was the point of Kyoto?
If a scientist is right, sooner or later scientific opinion will come around to his point of view. It may take a LONG time, but the point of science is that it happens faster than with the alternatives (i.e. never).
But the rings are very "wide", of the Sun isn't exctly above the equator the projected shadow will depend on how wide the ring is - potentially 1000's of kms
I agree that that isn't impossible. So if a large asteroid hits us at just the right angle and the mechanics are just right and a ring is formed which is not only optically thick but pretty dang wide, you might have something that could be visible and maybe even dim some light.
It just seems to me to be an awful lot of very improbable conditions for it to be a useful theory to explain some climate change. Essentially, the way I read it, there's some climate change they haven't been able to explain so you come up with this theory that essentially has no physical evidence. So now you are trying to explain "unexplainable" climate change with a theory that, given the odds, is highly unlikely to have even ocurred and for which there is really no evidence, let alone caused the effects on the climate they are predicting.
Me: For earth, I'm quite certain the ring would be on a smaller scale than Saturn.
You: More proof by assertion?
I will confess I can't prove how large or thick theoretical rings around the earth would be, nor can you prove that I am wrong.
However, Uranus is smaller than Saturn and all of its rings but one are listed as 0.1km thickness (the other is listed as less than 15km); compare that to a maximum thickness of 1000km for Saturn. The albedo of the rings of Uranus is also listed as 0.03, whereas the albedo of Saturn's rings goes up to 0.60.
Now that doesn't *prove* anything, but it does suggest that smaller planets have smaller rings with lower albedo.
I'm not saying I necessarily belive his idea, but it's not that easy to dismiss out of hand.
I'm not even dismissing the possibility the earth had rings. I just think it is relatively unlikely that earth had rings. And if earth had rings, it is relatively unlikely that they were large, dense, or with a high enough albedo to affect earth's climate. Given so many improbabilities I just don't acccept the theory as a reasonable explanation of "unexplained" climate change on the earth.
Me: Gotta love those climate models of scenarios that are impossible to compare to reality. Heck, the climate models have been SO accurate so far as far as global warming goes, why not duplicate their success with a climate model of something completely impossible to compare with reality to validate the model.
You: Now you are just letting a political opinion about a different matter affect your thinking.
No, my opinion of climate models is not political but scientific. I have no reason to believe climate models that actually predict LESS global warming every time they are refined. I have no reason to believe climate models that can't take 1850 climate data and, when run, produce the actual climate of the year 2000. I have no reason to believe a climate model developed by those that run their incomplete models and then turn around and suggest we make drastic changes to our economy based on the results.
As it is, climate scientists issue their doomsday reports precting all hell is going to break loose and we have to change everything now or we're in trouble--oh, and by the way, we're not 100% sure, but then the report continues on stressing the probability of the predicted effects despite the uncertainty.
As scientists making very disturbing claims of immense political and social importance, they should outright preface their predictions with "The following is based on climate models which we cannot guarantee are accurate. Improvements to this model over the last 10 years have consistently reduced the predicted impact, hence we must expect that future improvements to the model will also reduce the impact of the predictions included herein. The predictions in this report should be considered works-in-progress and only reflect one of an infinite number of possible future scenarios."
I wonder if reports had that kind of honest disclaimer whether or not politicians and the public would take them with a more appropriate level of consideration and belief. Who knows, but they probably wouldn't get any more funding.
Natural CO2 releases may be larger, but if they are in equilibrium with CO2 sinks, even a small increase in net CO2 input can cause a steady rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. (At least until the sinks catch up, which takes time, and may not occur at all).
I would submit that, there, you are using the "fear factor" by suggesting that the sinks may not catch up at all. Sure, anything is possible. But if there is one thing that is constant in earth's history, it's change. That's especially true for the climate. To suggest that, for the first time, the earth will not be able to establish a new equilibrium seems rather fatalistic and not based on any historic precedent. If the earth was able to recover from planet-killer asteroids, I think it will be able to establish a new equilibrium with its current habitants.
In raw numbers, humans dump about 6Gt (gigatons of Carbon) per year into the atmosphere. The biosphere absorbs about half of that, the rest stays in the air.
Which, over years or decades, will probably lead to more sinks in order to consume that. It's not like we're producing poison. Ok, well, some of what we produce is poisonous, but CO2 is always trumpted as the main cause of global warming. But CO2 isn't itself poison: It is food that can and almost definitely will stimulate the organisms that feed off it. Which will produce more oxygen. Certainly equilibrium will be established.
We can argue a lot about detailed effects, but the climate will be different from now.
Can you show me some point in time in the climate record where the climate remained static for more than about, oh, 5 seconds?
Sure, the climate will change. The climate will change regardless of what we do or don't do. It may change in different ways, but we can't even be sure of HOW it will differ given two courses of action. If we can't say with any certainty how the climate will react to any of several scenarios, how can we honestly state that one is worse than the other?
There are a lot of models that suggest shifts in agriculture, and sea level rise. They may not be a problem for some rich guy in Colorado, but it will be a serious problem for Bangladesh (they have many).
First, all models have shown is that the more they improve them, the less global warming is expected.
Second, it is not even proven whether global warming will cause sea levels to rise. Most of the sea level rise would have to come from Antartica--and the temperature could rise 10 degrees and that ice wouldn't melt.
And if it did happen to melt and sea level did rise, who is to say that earth doesn't want to go into an ice age and only our CO2 production is avoiding it? Given the choice between relocating 131 million people in Bangladesh or relocating around a billion people if mile-thick ice came pushing down from the north over North America, Europe, and central Asia, I'll take the former.
I insist that it is easier to deal with a few degree increase in temperature, a few meters increase in sea level, than ice a mile thick.
I don't know about that. There tends to be an extra layer of insulation between government-funded scientists (who by and large worry about global warming) and the financial interests. Certainly with the current U.S. administration there is no incentive for government scientists to exaggerate the seriousness of global warming.
The fact is, the individual scientists are not appointed by the administration. They've worked there for years, decades. I'm also not talking so much about those scientists hired full-time by the government, but rather those that get funding grants. Here's a great example that just came out today. This was funded by NASA. If these institutions came out and said, "No, nothing to see here" and a few more studies produced similar responses, do you think NASA is going to continue funding these types of research?
Actually, they seem to be advocating small changes in how we produce and consume energy, changes that will likely have to be made sooner or later anyway
The rational ones, perhaps. But what we see on the news and in politics are the ones that advocate 6-8% reductions in CO2 production from 1990 levels while offering exemptions to India and China, where the now famous Asian cloud of pollution is literally killing millions. That is not a "small" change, nor is it likely to help the earth's environment. It'll just make developed countries cleaner and kill a few million more Asians per year.
Honestly, I'm not sure where those in favor of Kyoto are 1) trying to achieve a distribution of wealth from the richer to poorer countries, or 2) export the pollution of richer countries to the poorer countries. Either way, I'm opposed to the end result.
After all, improving energy efficiency make the economy work better
I agree, let's improve efficiency. But let's work with what we have. Going cold turkey on carbon fuels--a course of action virtually required if we are to meet CO2 goals called "essential" by some scientists--is not an option right now. Rather than spending so much time and money investigating the effect of carbon fuels I'd love to see that money going into looking for cleaner solutions. That'd be a more effective use of resources.
Since when does the mere fact that someone is a scientist disqualify him or her from making policy recommendations?
Oh, he's entitled to his opinion. But, as a professional, he should make every effort possible to separate his personal opinions and science.
Science, when it works properly, is always ready to admit error.
When it works properly. But if you compare the science of astronomy to the climate science the difference is truly shocking. We are constantly reading about new discoveries, changes to old thoughts in astronomy because of some new pulsar they found, etc. It bounces all over. When it comes to climate science, all we hear is how the earth is warming and we are at fault with an impressive level of certainty expressed when you consider it is all based on models that, whenever "improved," inevitably produce lower estimates of global warming and which aren't even able to produce our current climate based on inputs from 150 years ago. Now, you can choose to conclude that we only hear about us causing global warming because it's true. But do you really think there is no proof of the opposite? Do you really think most of these funded scientists do the research wondering what they'll find? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical.
I truly believe most of them already know the results they're looking for (i.e. what they already believe or what will keep research dollars flowing) and either look for results that confirm that, or simply don't report things they find that are not convenient to publish. As you said, they're human too and, as such, not completely disinterested in the results.
Well, it makes for a big difference in the political end result: a theocracy burns dissenters at the stake
And in the current environment, a series of reports saying that nothing serious is happening in the environment would cause a lack of research funding. Those scientists that disagree with those that promote global warming are ridiculed or written off as having been "purchased" by oil interests. Sure, they're still alive, but they are burned at the stake in terms of funding and reputation in their field.
Raise that window screen the 1000 feet you mention, you won't be able to detect the drop in insolation it causes. But tell me, if the window screen was a couple of square miles in area, do you think the drop in insolation would still be undetectable?
A window screen a couple of square miles just 1000 feet above the ground, sure, it would be detectable. But you're now putting true ring dimensions at 1000 feet elevation as opposed to their true elevations.
To give you an idea, you have to go to Saturn Ring G at 165,000km from Saturn's center before you get a ring more than 0.1-1km in "thickness." And that's for Saturn. For earth, I'm quite certain the ring would be on a smaller scale than Saturn. And 0.1km-1km at anything more than a few hundred miles is going to be more like the pencil at 1000ft than the huge window screen at 1000ft.
It seems to me the smaller the particle size the greater its ability to block or reflect light. Wouldn't you agree?
Certainly it would depend on the quantity of small particles. The article says "a halo of boulders and rocks would compress around the equator into a thin plane." No mention of dust. I would think that makes sense since a meteor impact on Earth would result in most of the dust staying in the atmosphere since it would be quickly slowed down by the atmosphere given the small particle size, while larger rocks and boulders might make it to orbit. I doubt you'd find much 0.01mm particles in orbit, at least from a meteor impact.
The article also reads: "Boslough, a physicist at the Sandia National Lab in Albuquerque, and colleague Peter Fawcett, an Earth sciences professor at the University of New Mexico, devised a climate model to predict the effects of such a disk." Gotta love those climate models of scenarios that are impossible to compare to reality. Heck, the climate models have been SO accurate so far as far as global warming goes, why not duplicate their success with a climate model of something completely impossible to compare with reality to validate the model.
The article also says: "Under certain conditions, if the angle and mechanics are just right, a big asteroid or comet could create a debris ring by slamming into Earth, scientists theorize." So under certain conditions when the angle and mechanics are just right, we MIGHT get a ring. And that ring MIGHT have an effect depending on its characteristics. And if it has an effect, it MIGHT be detectable.
I would tend to believe that this guy was nearing the end of his research dollars and had to produce something, even if just a theory, in order to justify the research dollars he had received and maybe to score some more. It's always a bummer to receive funds, spend them over the course of a few years, and have nothing to show to the people that funded you.
Couple that with the undisputed fact that CO2 increases due to fossil fuel burning have been measured for a long time
The fact is, the CO2 produced by humans is a fraction of the total amount of CO2 produced by nature. I don't dispute that we generate CO2. I dispute that it makes a difference. Our CO2 production is far overwhelmed by nature's CO2 production.
a) why the observed human-caused CO2 increase doesn't cause a net heating,
Oh, I'm sure it might produce some net heating. But when you analyze the numbers you will realize that the amount of CO2 we're generating is miniscule compared to what's there naturally. I don't dispute that there could be some net heating. I DO dispute that it's significant, and definitely disagree with the doomsday scenarios that many environmentalists predict our actions will create.
b) you have to come up with a reason for the system to still show some warming from "natural" causes.
No, you don't have to come up with a reason for the system to show natural warming. That's the problem, you're thinking backwards. Those claiming that the warming is anything but natural need to provide some convincing evidence. Otherwise there is NO reason to believe it is anything but natural.
Warming that is very different (in that it is very rapid) from what is seen is climate records of the past.
Check your climate record. There have been very sudden movements in both directions in the past. There is nothing particularly special about this one except that we are here to witness it.
Oh, and you also have to explain why your point of view isn't at all influenced by financial interests in maintaining the status quo (remember, scientists working on global warming don't get paid to cry wolf - if anything they'd get more research funds if they could provide a soothing reassurance that there is no global warming).
Excuse me, but reality check: Most scientists that study global warming on a full-time basis do so because of funding. The funding can come from oil companies or the funding can come from environmental groups, universities, or the government itself. As soon as these researchers say, "No, there is no evidence of global warming" their research budgets dry up.
To pretend that those scientists that are promoting the theory of global warming have absolutely no financial interest in the results and are any more professional or ethical than those paid for by oil companies is very, very naive.
However, the point of science (as opposed to pretty much any other intellectual activity) is that it eventually converges toward the right answer.
The problem is that there are politicians out there advocating drastic changes in our social, political, and economic systems based on partial, in-progress results.
Another problem is that the scientists themselves are telling us (the world AND the politicians) what we need to do. That's not science, that's politics. The scientists should research climate and publish their results, and the results should speak for themselves. Leave it to society and the politicians to draw a conclusion of a reasonable course of action.
Scientists are the "clergy" of the 21st century. When "scientists" start making policy we will again have a theocracy that the "separation of church and state" was supposed to protect us from. Just now the clergy will be made up of "scientists" rather than religious people. The political result is the same.
Just because there have been other catastrophic climate changes and massive extinctions doesn't mean we are not causing this one and that we should just keep repeating our mistakes and let it happen or make it worse.
The fact is, we truly DON'T know that we are causing it.
The temperature record of the last 150 years--even if you accept the one championed by the IPCC--is still definitely within the range of normal climate variance. That we happen to be on the upswing of the variance at the same time of the industrial revolution doesn't mean that the industrial revolution caused it.
Since the temperature record itself, being within the range of natural climate variation, does not provide any reason for alarm, we are left with climate theories. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. So far, every time a climate model is made more accurate the result is less expected climate change.
In short, despite the hype, we've been given NO reason to believe that what we're witnessing is anything to be alarmed about.
I believe that dealing with a little extra heat in our enviroment is more manageable than dealing with ice a mile thick. YMMV.
Say that to the next flood/hurricane/tornado that destroys your town.
There is no proof that global warming--if it is happening--causes an increase in hurricanes or their strength. We have theories, but no proof.
In fact, this was supposed to be an "above average" hurricane season--and that "above average" rating was attributed, at the time, to global warming. They've already reduced their estimate of named storms once--I believe they were expecting 11 and are now estimating 9. And, if you haven't noticed, the second hurricane of the season just formed yesterday. We're way behind on our hurricane season this year.
In the meantime, we have caused a hole in the ozone layer
The ozone hole is naturally occuring and varies naturally. Sure, CFCs didn't help--but to say that we created the hole is wrong.
we've made the planet way more radioactive than it was before
Define "way more" radioactive? Perhaps a few areas where we've tested nuclear weapons, but do you have any evidence that on a global scale earth is more radioactive now than it was 100 years ago?
and we're buring the forest
Actually, we put out more naturally occuring fires every year than fires we create. As a result, our forests are denser than they were 50 years ago. Of course, this also means that when there is a fire there is a potential for more burning--but to say we're burning the forests is inaccurate.
and even the fossilised forest really really fast.
Uh huh. We were supposed to run out 2 years ago. But I guess the new number is 2030 or 2050 or so.
but we do know that we are causing a climate change. How do we know? Because of rational thought, it goes like this: For every action there is a reaction of equal propostion. We are dumping megatons of climate changing pollutants. You expect that there will be no reaction to this?
Unfortunately, the most logical of thought can often be wrong and disproved in the real world. Communism looks good on paper, too.
First, it's not megatons... it's gigatons.
Before worrying about the number of gigatons of CO2 produced by humans (6Gtons/year), consider how much CO2 is naturally occuring (over 144 Gtons/year). Further consider how many hundreds, thousands, or millions of gigatons of other gases (Nitrogen, Oxygen) exist in the atmosphere.
"Gigaatons" of CO2 sounds scary. But when you consider how much of CO2 is naturally occuring and how much is caused by humans, AND you consider the amount of atmosphere it is being mixed in to, it is inconsequential.
Start doing some research and don't just trust your own logic and what the popular media spoon feeds you.
First, as you mention, you have to get this "ring" into orbit. I can see a big impact launching a few rocks into space that might be lucky and stay in abort. But thousands or millions of rocks to form a ring? Seems very unlikely.
Second, assuming there was a ring, how huge and dense would it have to be to really make a difference, even at the equator?
Try this: Hold a pencil about a foot off the ground on a sunny day and you'll see a shadow. Raise that pencil to an altitude of, say, 1000 feet and you won't see any shadow at all. Likewise, if you have a non-solid ring of small debris circling the earth at, say, 1000-24,000 miles there will be no effect. Certainly nothing that could effect the climate.
The world will be much better off when climate scientists realize (or acknowledge) that the earth's climate has, and will continue, to change all by itself due to changes in the sun's output and climate mechanics far more complex than a silly ring around the planet. The earth's climate is fundamentally STABLE. When it gets too cold, it warms up. When it gets too warm, it cools down. This has happened for eons without any assistance from the human race. We'd have to be arrogant to think that we are so much the center of the universe (or our planet) as to think we can affect this, for better or for worse.
Of course, climate scientists can't accept the possibility that the climate just changes. That would undermine their theory that humans are causing global warming. If it is established and accepted that wide swings in earth's climate are possible without any specific cause, then no-one will listen to them on global warming. Which would be good, but is why we constantly hear some new theory of how something affected/affects the climate.
ALL scientists are skeptical. It's a basic requirement of the scientific method, and a reason it works wso damn well.
In a perfect world. Unfortunately, many of the "scientists" that advocate global warming punch a hole in that theory. Either they aren't scientists or they aren't sufficiently skeptical. It's a toss-up as to which is the case. And the fact that these people aren't sufficiently skeptical and, thus, fail the test of the scientific method is why their theories and conclusions are prime material for tabloids.
The sad part is that since they are supposedly scientists and people ASSUME the scientific method is being followed they get reported as news. Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
First they tried making us feel guilty that we were pirates, and the artists were starving, etc. That didn't work.
New strategy: Convince people that the "early adopters" are on the cutting edge and those that don't adopt are "behind the times."
I insist that Bill Clinton's spin doctors have apparently found new work. This stuff is too rich to be originating anywhere else.
"Early adopters" my ass. They're probably employees of RIAA and friends and family of same. Maybe being reimbursed. I don't know anyone who pays for music anymore, period.
Please, you think consumers felt bad about getting free music from Napster, and later from Gnutella or wherever else? After paying $15+ per CD and spending over $6000 on CDs in the last decade and a half you think I'm particularly concerned if I now get some "free" music? Free? Believe me, I've ALREADY paid for it.
In any case, the only proof we have that pay-to-download services are rising in popularlity is that they say so. I don't know anyone who has even tried them, let alone whipped out their credit card instead of powering up BearShare...
Lotteries are a tax on stupid people.
"Pay" music services are a tax on stupid people that don't know how or where to get software that lets them do it for free.
News flash: "In a change of generally accepted economic theory, in the year 2002 consumers started voluntarily paying more than they had to for a product. In fact, in possibly a first in history, consumers have chosen to pay for something that was available for free."
Yeah, right. I see they have Bill Clinton's spin doctors on the job at the RIAA now. :)
The thing is, when you are Microsoft with a monopoly-built legacy operating system, everything looks like a "blank" PC. And if that blank PC doesn't have a hard drive, damn it, we're going to add one so that we can stuff our OS on it. :)
I go one step better. My sendmail server hangs up on the SMTP connection as soon as it finds ADV: in the subject line of an incoming message. They don't even get to finish unloading their message. As soon as it says ADV:, they're gone.
That's great for the recipients, but it does nothing to reduce the load on ISP servers; in fact, it may increase it as the advertisers will have to send out MORE mail to make sure at least somebody opens it.
More ISPs can do what I'm doing and hang-up as soon as they see ADV: in the subject.
In the short term it doesn't solve the problem, but when absolutely no-one is reading spam then the response rate will drop to zero--at that point there will be no-one that WANTS to spam.
Also, such a solution does nothing to help legitimate advertisers, who need to know the demographics of who is actually reading their ad.
What is a "legitimate advertiser?" Anyone that is mailboming advertisements to me isn't legitimate regardless of whether they are selling penis cream or Norton products (seems to be the latest thing I've seen in spam) or discount airfares.
If there is an easy way to filter, they may buy a list that is 90% middle class professional office workers, but they have no way of telling what mix actually read their ad.
I also don't care if an advertiser "needs" to know if I read their advertisement. That's none of their business. They have no clue who reads their advertisements in a newspaper nor who hangs around during commercials on TVs... Why do they suddenly "need" to know if I click their email?
So they would never buy a service that operated under the "ADV" rules
Good! The idea isn't that the whole world does bombing runs with ADV:. The idea is that the ADV makes it so easy to filter that NO-ONE reads the spam and, in short order, spam as a method of advertising goes away.
Result: only the scam companies would ever send the mail.
Which is MOSTLY the case now. This is where the bounty comes in... If you get spam that isn't identified with ADV, the spammer has broken the law and under the law you're entitled to $10k from the spammer if you are the first to identify him. A few of those and the scam companies will stop sending spam because it's no longer a good business model. So "legitimate" companies don't spam because all their spam is filtered with ADV, and "illegal" spammers stop doing it because they'll be liable for $10k.
Of course, the idea won't work. As others have said, it's too easy to frame an innocent person or company. Unless the spammer shows you his email log, how can you really "prove" he did it? You could just be making up the logfile that shows a conection from 192.110.121.99, or whatever.
The problem is that most spam isn't prosecuted based on other violations of the law. Porn spam should be blatantly illegal since much of it goes directly to the inbox of minors. The owners of porn sites that spam should be sought out by the FBI and charged with corruption of minors. Most of the rest of the spam is fraudulent or deceptive in some way--it should be prosecuted by the FTC or FDA. The problem is they apparently don't have time, which is sad since it's currently one of the largest sources of blatant fraud operating in broad daylight, and so many of them would be open and shut cases. You just have to go get the perpetrator.
Not outsmart, just out-maneuver.
Do it once and see if you really do it again. It's a hassle to manage, there is a severe time zone problem, and a tendency for all work to come in late and way over budget.
You get what you pay for. I know at least two companies that were severely burned outsourcing to India. They actually lost money on the deals. One never got a working product after burning through a million dollars; the other got a semi-working product (i.e, not exactly what they had in mind) but it came in so far over budget that they believe it would have been cheaper to do it at home and would have been closer to what they really wanted.
As others have said, outsourcing to other countries is best for no-brain tasks such as converting legacy Cobol code to a more modern platform. They can see the old product, see the code, and make the new program do the same thing.
Outsourcing to other countries--especially in other time zones or with spoken language incompatabilities--projects that require feedback, customer interaction in definition, etc. are very, very poor candidates for outsourcing. These are the most interesting and high-paying jobs and they'll be staying here.
So unless you enjoy doing grunt work converting Cobol to C++ or Java, don't worry.
I guess it depends where you live. I don't have satellite Internet--I have a 56k dial-up. But my DirectTV tends to go out on stormy, rainy nights... just about the time you want to cuddle with your wife with some TV in the background. It's been enough that we've almost decided to go with cable TV just to avoid that problem.
I know companies that have been Microsoft shops since 1985 that are currently migrating from VB/SQLServer to PHP/MySQL because 1) VB is slow and you always have install problems with DLLs/OCXs, etc. 2) SQLServer is big, fat, and ugly. Overkill, 3) expensive, 4) subject to Microsoft's oppresive licensing and "forced" upgrades (which means spending more money).
The companies I know are moving to PHP/MySQL in their effort, quite literally, to ditch Microsoft. Which is amazing since they've been Microsoft shops. The good news is that these aren't open source geeks with an agenda. These are very practical companies doing what works best for them... and at least one of them has been a Microsoft shop since 1985. They've finished the first phase of ditching SQL Server for MySQL, so they won't be paying any more licenses their (nor will their customers). Next to go is VB.
Microsoft (and IBM) can throw out all the FUD they want. Actions speak louder than words, and the fact is that MySQL is one of the most popular databases for websites and, recently, serious commercial organizations are adopting it. And they are saving money. And that worries MS and IBM. After all, stories are being published quite routinely that mention Yahoo switching to MySQL, Amazon (?) saving money by switching OS, etc--how many stories do you really see that say, "We switched to DB2 or SQL Server and are saving millions of dollars!"
As for others in the open source community that diss MySQL, that's just a matter of religion. The internal bickering in the open source community hasn't helped the open source community gain respectibility. Competition is good, even within open-source, and it's sad that some people in the community reduce it to arguments along the lines of "mine is bigger than yours, want to see?"
Hmm, is that really it? Perhaps, but the reason I tend not to give out my cell phone # is because I don't want people bothering me. Cell phone plans in the U.S. have more minutes per month than I can use so price really isn't a factor. In fact, it's better for the consumer that way: I have "bulk" number of minutes and no-one has to pay to talk to me since I have more minutes than I need.
I personally prefer a single numbering system. I currently live in Mexico which used to have a U.S.-style cellular system where the subscriber paid. A couple years ago they changed to a European "caller pays" scheme. I hate it. Now, even though my plan only has 50 minutes per month included, I *never* use them all. And every person that calls me has to pay 40 cents per minute. So the minutes "included" in my plan are never used and *everyone* has to pay to talk to me. The winners are the local cell companies.
What I liked about the U.S. system is it used to be that wherever you were, you knew a local number required dialing 7 digits and a long distance call required dialing a 1 + area code + 7 digits. That's all you had to know. Unfortunately, even that's been bastardized in the U.S. now. Some areas still use 7-digit local calling, some have grown to two area codes so you need to dial a 3 digit area code plus the 7-digit local call even though it's still free.
All in all, the U.S. telephone numbering system used to be elegant in its simplicity and the same scheme applied nationwide. That has been lost... but I still like knowing all area codes are 3 digits and all numbers are 7 digits.
Not like the rest of the world where a "city" code may be 1-4 digits and the local number may be 5-8 digits. There's so little consistency you can't even tell if you have a valid phone number.
U.S. Numbering System: Let's make all area codes 3 digits long and all "local" numbers 7 digits long. A full phone number will always be 10 digits long.
Worldwide Numbering System: Let's make country codes that vary from 1-3 digits in length, let's make city codes that vary from 1-4 digits in length, and local numbers that vary from 4-8 digits in length. A full phone number will always have between 1 and 30 digits.
You might want to tell your web design mate that if he cannot upload or download his large graphical files efficiently at 56k then the majority of the users that will be visiting his site can't either.
You haven't thoroughly tested a website until you've validated it at 56k since that's what most of the world has.
Yeah, but not MUCH more--since the trend now seems to be to cap your bandwidth or charge you even MORE if you are a "power use" that uses more than a GB per month. The power of broadband is its speed, but that power is greatly dimished if you use up your monthly allotment in the first 4 days of the month.
The fact is, broadband will not catch on while providers are trying to reduce the amount you can use it and raise prices. Many see dial-up as truly "unlimited use" whereas broadband is always on, but the more you use it the more you pay. People don't like that because it introduces uncertainty as to how much you're going to pay.
Same here. I used to report spam. But there's too much of it now.
So I modified my sendmail to include some filters. What's different about my approach to standard spam filters is that my filters are applied during the DATA phase of the SMTP connection. So if spam is recognized the connection is immediately dropped. The spammer can't even finish dumping his load. Usually, the spammer tries and tries again.
I figure this is good because: 1) I never see the spam. 2) The spam is never successfully unloaded on my system. 3) The repeated attempts to deliver increases the time/cost for the spammer... or open relay.
It works great. Some spam still gets through, but much, much less and it quickly gets added to my filters.
Sounds like a neat way to say good-bye. But could come back to bite you if the source code to their flagship products ever found its way onto the Internet and they went back and see you signed off that you took them with you.
My policy is sign as little as possible. Always. In this case, if the company is going out of business anyway you might as well sign because they won't be around to sue later anyway, nor to sue you if you don't do what you agree to. But if the company is going to stick around I'd forego the severance pay.
After all, I was paid to do the work I did. In reality why should anyone feel entitled to severance pay? Sure, if the company is in a position to offer it then I think that's a nice gesture on the part of the company. But, in reality, I'd look at that as an "extra" that the company is under no obligation to pay.
Hey, it's Friday, don't sweat it. :)
OK - they will catch up at some point. The issue is where is that point? A degree and 100 years? 10 degrees and 1000 years? Or is the new equilibrium point similar to Venus?
I agree we don't know. It would seem logical, however, that considering the 6Gt of carbon we're adding to the environment is arguably less than 2% of the total produced (and consumed) by nature each year that the answer is most likely yes, and that it would tend to be on the lower side. Do I have facts to back that up? No, I don't.
What I would agree is that we should watch our carbon sinks. If we produce 6Gt to the atmosphere each year AND destroy carbon sinks I can admit to a problem. In that case I think the best solution would be to reduce destruction of the sinks since they're usually pretty and pleasant to camp in anyway.
An interesting example is that of North American forests - which were long touted as big carbon sinks. Well, now big forest fires are starting to return that carbon into the atmosphere.
And, *presto*, equilibrium. The problem, of course, is we started putting out forest fires which caused too much undergrowth in the forests. So when they burn now, they burn bad. The forests are still carbon sinks--granted, reduced in effectiveness until they regrow--but that is part of the natural cycle.
In short, the Earth will establish equilibrium. Whether that includes a large human population is open to debate - it certainly doesn't include large dinosaur populations. The point being that climate change has in the past wiped out species.
I don't think it is arrogant to say that we can adapt a little better than the dinosaurs.
Besides, I've heard certain evironmentalists say that we "need" to get to a 2 billion population which is suposedly sustainable. They've never said how they'd like to accomplish that. Perhaps a nice climate change to par down the population is just what we need. [I am being sarcastic, just in case it wasn't obvious].
Next you'll probably say either that we have to study the problem more before we act, or that the evil Chinese should act first since in the years to come they will produce more CO2.
Do I think we should improve fuel efficiency of cars? Yes. Do I think we ought to investigate solar power? Yes. Do I think we ought to use more nuclear energy which, when done right, is comparably clean? Yes. Do I think it's a good idea to turn off the lights when you're not using them? Yes.
Do I think we need mandatory caps on CO2 production? No. Do I think the developed world should reduce CO2 production while India and China, making up 2 billion people, are exempt? No.
So I will agree to a rational, measured response based on what we know now. But don't ask me to agree to massive social, political, or economic changes based on what we know now. We don't know enough. In that sense, YES, we need more research first.
Something will happen, and the best models seem to indicate rather unpleasant effects.
Perhaps, although the best models indicate less unpleasantness every time they are improved. With each improvement, the amount of unpleasantness approaches zero.
Do you have proof of this statement? I can recall a few announcements in the last couple of years where the estimates were revised upward, but it'll take time to find the references. In fact, the IPCC 2000 report (which is effectivly a summary of many, many models), revised their estimate upward from 1995. So I don't think your statement is true.
It is true, but I'd also have to go back and search for the references. I don't doubt that the IPCC revises their estimates upwards, they are a reactive group trying to stimulate action. It would be counterproductive to revise them downwards. But I have read quite a few stories since 1990, initially in newspapers and over the last few years, where the estimates have been revised downwards. I'll grant they don't get as much media attention.
I'll try to go back and find some links for ya.
That too is debatable. I take it you are referring to the West Antarctice ice sheet? There was a recent article in Science talking about how recent observations of ice dynamics (e.g. the recent Ross (?) ice shelf collapse) that seem to indicate that ice sheets can collapse very quickly with only small perturbations.
Again, I'd have to go back to the source to verify names. I'm not good with names unless I note them down--but I do remember text that said that the vast majority of ice in Antartica is built 2 miles thick on top of solid land. That ice isn't going anywhere--in fact, if anything it only gets thicker.
As for ice shelves, they come and go.
Seriously though, folks, if models and observations start indicating that is happening, we'll deal with it then. In the mean time, we shouldn't use such specious arguments to avoid dealing with a better known threat.
You see, you're being as open-minded as scientists that think they have the answer before they conduct the experiment. We're due for an ice age, in the 70's we were supposed to be on the verge of the ice age. Suddenly we're dealing with global warming??
I'm sorry, but as much as the thought of using CO2 production to avoid an ice age sounds like science fiction to you, so does global warming based on the miniscule amounts of CO2 we're producing sound like science fiction to me. If we can cause global warming by producing CO2, what is so far-feteched about that avoiding an ice age??
I think we could do more than we are, and we won't have viable alternatives until we start investing enough to bootstrap new technologies. In fact, very few modern technologies have been adpoted without large amount of initial government subsidy.
So let's subsidize them! I'm all for developing cleaner and cheaper energy, and I'd much rather spend my tax dollars researching new energy than paying scientists to come up with more doomsday predictions. Rather than spending money on predicting what might happen, why not spend the money on coming up with a solution that makes the other predictions completely irrelevant?
We hear about global warming because it is an observational fact, physically plausible, and of some concern globally. There is no vast conspiracy to "conceal the truth", intentional or not.
I'm not saying there is a vast conspiracy. I think it is a self-feeding phenomenon that many scientists cling too for funding and many politicians cling to for power grabs or furthering their personal visions for the world.
I think Kyoto is a perfect example of that. Will you agree that if you slap CO2 limits on developed countries but exempt developing countries that you will not reduce pollution, just move the sources of pollution to the developing countries? Given that, what was the purpose of Kyoto? Either to move the pollution out of our backyard into someone elses, or move our jobs to developing countries (wealth redistribution). But you will NOT improve the worldwide environment. So what was the point of Kyoto?
If a scientist is right, sooner or later scientific opinion will come around to his point of view. It may take a LONG time, but the point of science is that it happens faster than with the alternatives (i.e. never).
The same can be said for religion, historically.
I agree that that isn't impossible. So if a large asteroid hits us at just the right angle and the mechanics are just right and a ring is formed which is not only optically thick but pretty dang wide, you might have something that could be visible and maybe even dim some light.
It just seems to me to be an awful lot of very improbable conditions for it to be a useful theory to explain some climate change. Essentially, the way I read it, there's some climate change they haven't been able to explain so you come up with this theory that essentially has no physical evidence. So now you are trying to explain "unexplainable" climate change with a theory that, given the odds, is highly unlikely to have even ocurred and for which there is really no evidence, let alone caused the effects on the climate they are predicting.
Me: For earth, I'm quite certain the ring would be on a smaller scale than Saturn.
You: More proof by assertion?
I will confess I can't prove how large or thick theoretical rings around the earth would be, nor can you prove that I am wrong.
However, Uranus is smaller than Saturn and all of its rings but one are listed as 0.1km thickness (the other is listed as less than 15km); compare that to a maximum thickness of 1000km for Saturn. The albedo of the rings of Uranus is also listed as 0.03, whereas the albedo of Saturn's rings goes up to 0.60.
Now that doesn't *prove* anything, but it does suggest that smaller planets have smaller rings with lower albedo.
I'm not saying I necessarily belive his idea, but it's not that easy to dismiss out of hand.
I'm not even dismissing the possibility the earth had rings. I just think it is relatively unlikely that earth had rings. And if earth had rings, it is relatively unlikely that they were large, dense, or with a high enough albedo to affect earth's climate. Given so many improbabilities I just don't acccept the theory as a reasonable explanation of "unexplained" climate change on the earth.
Me: Gotta love those climate models of scenarios that are impossible to compare to reality. Heck, the climate models have been SO accurate so far as far as global warming goes, why not duplicate their success with a climate model of something completely impossible to compare with reality to validate the model.
You: Now you are just letting a political opinion about a different matter affect your thinking.
No, my opinion of climate models is not political but scientific. I have no reason to believe climate models that actually predict LESS global warming every time they are refined. I have no reason to believe climate models that can't take 1850 climate data and, when run, produce the actual climate of the year 2000. I have no reason to believe a climate model developed by those that run their incomplete models and then turn around and suggest we make drastic changes to our economy based on the results.
As it is, climate scientists issue their doomsday reports precting all hell is going to break loose and we have to change everything now or we're in trouble--oh, and by the way, we're not 100% sure, but then the report continues on stressing the probability of the predicted effects despite the uncertainty.
As scientists making very disturbing claims of immense political and social importance, they should outright preface their predictions with "The following is based on climate models which we cannot guarantee are accurate. Improvements to this model over the last 10 years have consistently reduced the predicted impact, hence we must expect that future improvements to the model will also reduce the impact of the predictions included herein. The predictions in this report should be considered works-in-progress and only reflect one of an infinite number of possible future scenarios."
I wonder if reports had that kind of honest disclaimer whether or not politicians and the public would take them with a more appropriate level of consideration and belief. Who knows, but they probably wouldn't get any more funding.
I would submit that, there, you are using the "fear factor" by suggesting that the sinks may not catch up at all. Sure, anything is possible. But if there is one thing that is constant in earth's history, it's change. That's especially true for the climate. To suggest that, for the first time, the earth will not be able to establish a new equilibrium seems rather fatalistic and not based on any historic precedent. If the earth was able to recover from planet-killer asteroids, I think it will be able to establish a new equilibrium with its current habitants.
In raw numbers, humans dump about 6Gt (gigatons of Carbon) per year into the atmosphere. The biosphere absorbs about half of that, the rest stays in the air.
Which, over years or decades, will probably lead to more sinks in order to consume that. It's not like we're producing poison. Ok, well, some of what we produce is poisonous, but CO2 is always trumpted as the main cause of global warming. But CO2 isn't itself poison: It is food that can and almost definitely will stimulate the organisms that feed off it. Which will produce more oxygen. Certainly equilibrium will be established.
We can argue a lot about detailed effects, but the climate will be different from now.
Can you show me some point in time in the climate record where the climate remained static for more than about, oh, 5 seconds?
Sure, the climate will change. The climate will change regardless of what we do or don't do. It may change in different ways, but we can't even be sure of HOW it will differ given two courses of action. If we can't say with any certainty how the climate will react to any of several scenarios, how can we honestly state that one is worse than the other?
There are a lot of models that suggest shifts in agriculture, and sea level rise. They may not be a problem for some rich guy in Colorado, but it will be a serious problem for Bangladesh (they have many).
First, all models have shown is that the more they improve them, the less global warming is expected.
Second, it is not even proven whether global warming will cause sea levels to rise. Most of the sea level rise would have to come from Antartica--and the temperature could rise 10 degrees and that ice wouldn't melt.
And if it did happen to melt and sea level did rise, who is to say that earth doesn't want to go into an ice age and only our CO2 production is avoiding it? Given the choice between relocating 131 million people in Bangladesh or relocating around a billion people if mile-thick ice came pushing down from the north over North America, Europe, and central Asia, I'll take the former.
I insist that it is easier to deal with a few degree increase in temperature, a few meters increase in sea level, than ice a mile thick.
I don't know about that. There tends to be an extra layer of insulation between government-funded scientists (who by and large worry about global warming) and the financial interests. Certainly with the current U.S. administration there is no incentive for government scientists to exaggerate the seriousness of global warming.
The fact is, the individual scientists are not appointed by the administration. They've worked there for years, decades. I'm also not talking so much about those scientists hired full-time by the government, but rather those that get funding grants. Here's a great example that just came out today. This was funded by NASA. If these institutions came out and said, "No, nothing to see here" and a few more studies produced similar responses, do you think NASA is going to continue funding these types of research?
Actually, they seem to be advocating small changes in how we produce and consume energy, changes that will likely have to be made sooner or later anyway
The rational ones, perhaps. But what we see on the news and in politics are the ones that advocate 6-8% reductions in CO2 production from 1990 levels while offering exemptions to India and China, where the now famous Asian cloud of pollution is literally killing millions. That is not a "small" change, nor is it likely to help the earth's environment. It'll just make developed countries cleaner and kill a few million more Asians per year.
Honestly, I'm not sure where those in favor of Kyoto are 1) trying to achieve a distribution of wealth from the richer to poorer countries, or 2) export the pollution of richer countries to the poorer countries. Either way, I'm opposed to the end result.
After all, improving energy efficiency make the economy work better
I agree, let's improve efficiency. But let's work with what we have. Going cold turkey on carbon fuels--a course of action virtually required if we are to meet CO2 goals called "essential" by some scientists--is not an option right now. Rather than spending so much time and money investigating the effect of carbon fuels I'd love to see that money going into looking for cleaner solutions. That'd be a more effective use of resources.
Since when does the mere fact that someone is a scientist disqualify him or her from making policy recommendations?
Oh, he's entitled to his opinion. But, as a professional, he should make every effort possible to separate his personal opinions and science.
Science, when it works properly, is always ready to admit error.
When it works properly. But if you compare the science of astronomy to the climate science the difference is truly shocking. We are constantly reading about new discoveries, changes to old thoughts in astronomy because of some new pulsar they found, etc. It bounces all over. When it comes to climate science, all we hear is how the earth is warming and we are at fault with an impressive level of certainty expressed when you consider it is all based on models that, whenever "improved," inevitably produce lower estimates of global warming and which aren't even able to produce our current climate based on inputs from 150 years ago. Now, you can choose to conclude that we only hear about us causing global warming because it's true. But do you really think there is no proof of the opposite? Do you really think most of these funded scientists do the research wondering what they'll find? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical.
I truly believe most of them already know the results they're looking for (i.e. what they already believe or what will keep research dollars flowing) and either look for results that confirm that, or simply don't report things they find that are not convenient to publish. As you said, they're human too and, as such, not completely disinterested in the results.
Well, it makes for a big difference in the political end result: a theocracy burns dissenters at the stake
And in the current environment, a series of reports saying that nothing serious is happening in the environment would cause a lack of research funding. Those scientists that disagree with those that promote global warming are ridiculed or written off as having been "purchased" by oil interests. Sure, they're still alive, but they are burned at the stake in terms of funding and reputation in their field.
A window screen a couple of square miles just 1000 feet above the ground, sure, it would be detectable. But you're now putting true ring dimensions at 1000 feet elevation as opposed to their true elevations.
To give you an idea, you have to go to Saturn Ring G at 165,000km from Saturn's center before you get a ring more than 0.1-1km in "thickness." And that's for Saturn. For earth, I'm quite certain the ring would be on a smaller scale than Saturn. And 0.1km-1km at anything more than a few hundred miles is going to be more like the pencil at 1000ft than the huge window screen at 1000ft.
It seems to me the smaller the particle size the greater its ability to block or reflect light. Wouldn't you agree?
Certainly it would depend on the quantity of small particles. The article says "a halo of boulders and rocks would compress around the equator into a thin plane." No mention of dust. I would think that makes sense since a meteor impact on Earth would result in most of the dust staying in the atmosphere since it would be quickly slowed down by the atmosphere given the small particle size, while larger rocks and boulders might make it to orbit. I doubt you'd find much 0.01mm particles in orbit, at least from a meteor impact.
The article also reads: "Boslough, a physicist at the Sandia National Lab in Albuquerque, and colleague Peter Fawcett, an Earth sciences professor at the University of New Mexico, devised a climate model to predict the effects of such a disk." Gotta love those climate models of scenarios that are impossible to compare to reality. Heck, the climate models have been SO accurate so far as far as global warming goes, why not duplicate their success with a climate model of something completely impossible to compare with reality to validate the model.
The article also says: "Under certain conditions, if the angle and mechanics are just right, a big asteroid or comet could create a debris ring by slamming into Earth, scientists theorize." So under certain conditions when the angle and mechanics are just right, we MIGHT get a ring. And that ring MIGHT have an effect depending on its characteristics. And if it has an effect, it MIGHT be detectable.
I would tend to believe that this guy was nearing the end of his research dollars and had to produce something, even if just a theory, in order to justify the research dollars he had received and maybe to score some more. It's always a bummer to receive funds, spend them over the course of a few years, and have nothing to show to the people that funded you.
The fact is, the CO2 produced by humans is a fraction of the total amount of CO2 produced by nature. I don't dispute that we generate CO2. I dispute that it makes a difference. Our CO2 production is far overwhelmed by nature's CO2 production.
a) why the observed human-caused CO2 increase doesn't cause a net heating,
Oh, I'm sure it might produce some net heating. But when you analyze the numbers you will realize that the amount of CO2 we're generating is miniscule compared to what's there naturally. I don't dispute that there could be some net heating. I DO dispute that it's significant, and definitely disagree with the doomsday scenarios that many environmentalists predict our actions will create.
b) you have to come up with a reason for the system to still show some warming from "natural" causes.
No, you don't have to come up with a reason for the system to show natural warming. That's the problem, you're thinking backwards. Those claiming that the warming is anything but natural need to provide some convincing evidence. Otherwise there is NO reason to believe it is anything but natural.
Warming that is very different (in that it is very rapid) from what is seen is climate records of the past.
Check your climate record. There have been very sudden movements in both directions in the past. There is nothing particularly special about this one except that we are here to witness it.
Oh, and you also have to explain why your point of view isn't at all influenced by financial interests in maintaining the status quo (remember, scientists working on global warming don't get paid to cry wolf - if anything they'd get more research funds if they could provide a soothing reassurance that there is no global warming).
Excuse me, but reality check: Most scientists that study global warming on a full-time basis do so because of funding. The funding can come from oil companies or the funding can come from environmental groups, universities, or the government itself. As soon as these researchers say, "No, there is no evidence of global warming" their research budgets dry up.
To pretend that those scientists that are promoting the theory of global warming have absolutely no financial interest in the results and are any more professional or ethical than those paid for by oil companies is very, very naive.
However, the point of science (as opposed to pretty much any other intellectual activity) is that it eventually converges toward the right answer.
The problem is that there are politicians out there advocating drastic changes in our social, political, and economic systems based on partial, in-progress results.
Another problem is that the scientists themselves are telling us (the world AND the politicians) what we need to do. That's not science, that's politics. The scientists should research climate and publish their results, and the results should speak for themselves. Leave it to society and the politicians to draw a conclusion of a reasonable course of action.
Scientists are the "clergy" of the 21st century. When "scientists" start making policy we will again have a theocracy that the "separation of church and state" was supposed to protect us from. Just now the clergy will be made up of "scientists" rather than religious people. The political result is the same.
The fact is, we truly DON'T know that we are causing it.
The temperature record of the last 150 years--even if you accept the one championed by the IPCC--is still definitely within the range of normal climate variance. That we happen to be on the upswing of the variance at the same time of the industrial revolution doesn't mean that the industrial revolution caused it.
Since the temperature record itself, being within the range of natural climate variation, does not provide any reason for alarm, we are left with climate theories. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. So far, every time a climate model is made more accurate the result is less expected climate change.
In short, despite the hype, we've been given NO reason to believe that what we're witnessing is anything to be alarmed about.
I believe that dealing with a little extra heat in our enviroment is more manageable than dealing with ice a mile thick. YMMV.
Say that to the next flood/hurricane/tornado that destroys your town.
There is no proof that global warming--if it is happening--causes an increase in hurricanes or their strength. We have theories, but no proof.
In fact, this was supposed to be an "above average" hurricane season--and that "above average" rating was attributed, at the time, to global warming. They've already reduced their estimate of named storms once--I believe they were expecting 11 and are now estimating 9. And, if you haven't noticed, the second hurricane of the season just formed yesterday. We're way behind on our hurricane season this year.
In the meantime, we have caused a hole in the ozone layer
The ozone hole is naturally occuring and varies naturally. Sure, CFCs didn't help--but to say that we created the hole is wrong.
we've made the planet way more radioactive than it was before
Define "way more" radioactive? Perhaps a few areas where we've tested nuclear weapons, but do you have any evidence that on a global scale earth is more radioactive now than it was 100 years ago?
and we're buring the forest
Actually, we put out more naturally occuring fires every year than fires we create. As a result, our forests are denser than they were 50 years ago. Of course, this also means that when there is a fire there is a potential for more burning--but to say we're burning the forests is inaccurate.
and even the fossilised forest really really fast.
Uh huh. We were supposed to run out 2 years ago. But I guess the new number is 2030 or 2050 or so.
but we do know that we are causing a climate change. How do we know? Because of rational thought, it goes like this: For every action there is a reaction of equal propostion. We are dumping megatons of climate changing pollutants. You expect that there will be no reaction to this?
Unfortunately, the most logical of thought can often be wrong and disproved in the real world. Communism looks good on paper, too.
First, it's not megatons... it's gigatons.
Before worrying about the number of gigatons of CO2 produced by humans (6Gtons/year), consider how much CO2 is naturally occuring (over 144 Gtons/year). Further consider how many hundreds, thousands, or millions of gigatons of other gases (Nitrogen, Oxygen) exist in the atmosphere.
"Gigaatons" of CO2 sounds scary. But when you consider how much of CO2 is naturally occuring and how much is caused by humans, AND you consider the amount of atmosphere it is being mixed in to, it is inconsequential.
Start doing some research and don't just trust your own logic and what the popular media spoon feeds you.
First, as you mention, you have to get this "ring" into orbit. I can see a big impact launching a few rocks into space that might be lucky and stay in abort. But thousands or millions of rocks to form a ring? Seems very unlikely.
Second, assuming there was a ring, how huge and dense would it have to be to really make a difference, even at the equator?
Try this: Hold a pencil about a foot off the ground on a sunny day and you'll see a shadow. Raise that pencil to an altitude of, say, 1000 feet and you won't see any shadow at all. Likewise, if you have a non-solid ring of small debris circling the earth at, say, 1000-24,000 miles there will be no effect. Certainly nothing that could effect the climate.
The world will be much better off when climate scientists realize (or acknowledge) that the earth's climate has, and will continue, to change all by itself due to changes in the sun's output and climate mechanics far more complex than a silly ring around the planet. The earth's climate is fundamentally STABLE. When it gets too cold, it warms up. When it gets too warm, it cools down. This has happened for eons without any assistance from the human race. We'd have to be arrogant to think that we are so much the center of the universe (or our planet) as to think we can affect this, for better or for worse.
Of course, climate scientists can't accept the possibility that the climate just changes. That would undermine their theory that humans are causing global warming. If it is established and accepted that wide swings in earth's climate are possible without any specific cause, then no-one will listen to them on global warming. Which would be good, but is why we constantly hear some new theory of how something affected/affects the climate.
In a perfect world. Unfortunately, many of the "scientists" that advocate global warming punch a hole in that theory. Either they aren't scientists or they aren't sufficiently skeptical. It's a toss-up as to which is the case. And the fact that these people aren't sufficiently skeptical and, thus, fail the test of the scientific method is why their theories and conclusions are prime material for tabloids.
The sad part is that since they are supposedly scientists and people ASSUME the scientific method is being followed they get reported as news. Sad.