That's how it's calculated in the studys, and that's why cost to industry studies always overestimate the cost, usually by a foactor of two or three, but not rarely, ten.
Idustry finds cunning and economical solutions when pressed by regulation.
Solar water heating systems pay for themselves in three years in tropical zones and seven years in a climate like england's... the result of forcing households to have them would be a net saving in somthing of that time period for most countries. (It won't help Iceland though).
The Stern Report discusses cost at some length and detail. The cost is greater for not attempting to curb climate change.
I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.
Be alarmed. Greenhouse gas levels are greater than at any time in the past few million years. Temperatures will certainly rise rapidly to levels greater than at any time in the past few million years. The consequences of this are very dire. I such cases you don't wait for an exact description of the consequences, you get alarmed and act, because delaying worsens the consequences. The temperature takes about half a century to respond to greenhouse gasses increases, so most of the disaster is in the post. So waiting until it gets bad is not going to work.
The planet has been warmer than it currently is plenty of times before.
Possibly at a couple of points in the last 7 ice ages. But we are within 1C of the warmest that humanity has ever co-existed with.
Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.
Once the users are broken in on FOSS app replacements, begin switching the OS for those users you've managed to get using purely FOSS apps. Move up through the users from there. The last and most difficult cases can be handled with virtual machines and terminal servers.
A large organisation does much better in terms of support and roll out of new hardware if the entire place has one image. My employer has 6000 PCs nearly every one is the same image.
It's very good from a costs perspective. You want to move your entire user-base at once.
That's one of the Common misunderstandings. He was educated and employed at the department of political science at Aarhus University, where he taught statistics to the students. But he has not been educated as a statistician.
No. But we suspect that acting will have about 5% of the cost of dealing with it. So you act as much as you currently think you need to and revise as information becomes available.
More importantly, we don't know what the consequences of our actions are.
Well, reducing greenhouse emissions will reduce the rate of increase in concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Bottom line: This is a good first step, but we need another 10 years or so of studies and solutions analysis before we should commit to a global course of response. Overreacting now "just in case" could be far more damaging than doing nothing.
Are they even aware that oscillations of the Earth's orbit due to the other planets explain every Major Ice Age going back 1 million years with a period of about 100K years between ice ages?
That's part of what's worrying them. The Milankovitch cycles haven't been in control of the climate for the past 8000 years(.pdf).
Are they even aware that the Minor Ice Ages can be explained as forced by precession and nutation of the Earth's axis due to perturbation by the Sun and Moon?
No, they think that this one is due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
Have you not heard of the greenhouse effect, or are you unaware that we now have the greatest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in more than 650 000 years?
Planting a forest only works if you're going to keep the carbon as wood.
When the tree dies it returns it's carbon to the atmosphere, much as the far-worse-than-carbon dioxide-by-mass methane. Now climate change can kill forests. In fact there is a danger that the mighty Amazon will go.
You really need to stop pumping carbon into the biosphere that hasn't been seen since the carboniferous era. Planting trees is just shuffling Carbon from atmosphere to wood and back again. (Although it does provide a nice place for birds to sit)
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
There are numerous proxies for temperature. Ice core studies use the proportion of deuterium to hydrogen in the ice is a sound local temperature proxy, since the water with deuterium in it requires more heat to evaporate it. This proxy correlates well with temperature measurements.
A mercury thermometer can measure relative temperature to within 0.1C. These have been around since 1714.
3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.
Indeedno. About 0.07%. (Yes that's not 7% and a typo, that's 7 parts in every 10 000.)
Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years.
5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is.
No, the earth is experiencing global warming. Jupiter is experiencing a redistribution of temperature. (from your link: As a result, areas around the equator become warmer, while the poles can start to cool down.)
6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is.
Possibly. I don't think that observed changes on Mars over the past 7 years are a good reason to ignore the measured and predicted effect on increasing greenhouse gasses here on earth over the past 100.
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena?
No it's not. CO2 levels are the highest in several million years, and temperatures are hotter than any time in the Holocene, which represents 7 ice-age cycles. This is new, and we know why it's happening, because the physics of greenhouse gasses is well understood.
There is not enough Lockean analysis done on IP law. It's property, so some of these laws need to stand up to the basis is Lockean theory.
Accoring to Locke, a person can acquire rights in property if the person appropriated resources from the common (which in the IP case, is the field of all possible ideas and symbolisations of those ideas), and mixed his labour with them. This transformed part of the common it into his property, defensible against the world. But you could not not take more than you could consume before the property spoiled, and you could not take so much that the community would be deprived by the loss from the common.
That means if intellectual property is infringing on you, it doesn't meet the standard for property, and a decent legal system should rule that it is in fact part of the common.
11th tenet: "11. Availability of Microsoft patents. Microsoft will generally license patents on its operating system inventions (other than those that differentiate the appearance of Microsoft's products) on fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft's intellectual property rights."
This means that OS will not be licensed patents. Neither will anyone be licensed patents for free.
The MS strategy has not changed... crush the competition (which is OSS) in the courts.
But the idea is not to release the communications protocols for windows, since once released they will be used by compeditors the world over. So it is the worldwide income that microsoft will be writing this off against.
I can't see them abandoning the Eruopean market... that is a sure way to have someone else fill the gap.
Kyoto puts a financial value on Greenhouse emissions, and therefore forces investment in developing those technologies that imporved GHGs.
The USA's economy is more right wing than Europes. Ie. They sacrifice more economic growth for more social security. Slower growth is to be expected - you need to do better statistics to isolate the effect of Kyoto than that.
Futhermore euopean infrastructure has been converted to us infrastructure in Iraq by the war. US has stolen billions in oil from the Iraqi people through infrastructure invested in by the French (and Russians - but they aren't first world).
Compared to Kyoto requriements which are based on 1990 GHG emissions, the US has certainly not had greater improvements on GHG emissions. The US is lagging a long way in this.
re: we should fund more research for true, viable alternatives.
That is what Kyoto does. It provides a real economic reason for that development.
re:Arbitrarily trying to limit carbon emissions, when billions of people who embrace modernity need energy and don't have alternatives, is a bad idea.
Carbon credits can also be bought and sold. Kyoto doesn't "Arbitrarity limit" - it provides a cost to the production.
When google grows up all your files and environment will be online, and you will do your computing through third party devices - like your phone or your watch or your tie or your fridge or your home entertainment centere or whatever. Air conditioning unit. Aibo. Car.
These devices will be running "itdeosntmatterwhat"
... But I expect Solaris will be well optimised for the purpose....
>>>to a superior security architecture which was less conducive to the remotely exploitable vulnerabilities IE has fallen victom to.
Which they have. FF simply is more secure. There are far more high resk threats to IE.
And FF does respond to what threats there are many times faster than IE, but that's less material than the fact that there are less serious threats.
MS sells IE for the same price if it's insecure. More now that they are going into virus protection software. FF are simply trying to make a good product - and with the code exposed, this is sure to happen.
Deal with it.
Pretty much everywhere. If you google scholar global warming anthropogenic, Like so, you'll find that the literature pretty much accepts that global warming has a significant human created component.
This report was particularly telling in it's time. You have to read the whole whack if you want to believe it, but these charts tell the story they found, by evaluating a range of models that existed in 2001.
i.e. the observations just dont fit any model that doesn't include anthropogenic forcing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how it's calculated in the studys, and that's why cost to industry studies always overestimate the cost, usually by a foactor of two or three, but not rarely, ten.
... the result of forcing households to have them would be a net saving in somthing of that time period for most countries. (It won't help Iceland though).
Idustry finds cunning and economical solutions when pressed by regulation.
Solar water heating systems pay for themselves in three years in tropical zones and seven years in a climate like england's
The Stern Report discusses cost at some length and detail. The cost is greater for not attempting to curb climate change.
version.
With a profit margin in excess of 80%, the cost of any version of windows is mostly monopoly tax.
Be alarmed. Greenhouse gas levels are greater than at any time in the past few million years. Temperatures will certainly rise rapidly to levels greater than at any time in the past few million years. The consequences of this are very dire. I such cases you don't wait for an exact description of the consequences, you get alarmed and act, because delaying worsens the consequences. The temperature takes about half a century to respond to greenhouse gasses increases, so most of the disaster is in the post. So waiting until it gets bad is not going to work.
Possibly at a couple of points in the last 7 ice ages. But we are within 1C of the warmest that humanity has ever co-existed with.
Utter bollocks. Have you not heard of the greenhouse effect? It causes warming!
Greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing. It's caused by humans.
This is not a mystery. The greenhouse effect is very well understood.
A large organisation does much better in terms of support and roll out of new hardware if the entire place has one image. My employer has 6000 PCs nearly every one is the same image.
It's very good from a costs perspective. You want to move your entire user-base at once.
Well, reducing greenhouse emissions will reduce the rate of increase in concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
Relevantly:
"You can't wait for the answers because there are consequences...You monitor things carefully and make midcourse corrections as you go."
Oh my giddy aunt, those are scary.
In Soviet America, you warm to Carbon Dioxide.
Here's a comprehensive list of his errors and omissions.
Did you know that the Sun's radiation output varies about 7 parts in 10000?
Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming.
Indeed no. What parts of:
Did you miss?
Rubbish. It's the most significant factor.
That's part of what's worrying them. The Milankovitch cycles haven't been in control of the climate for the past 8000 years(.pdf).
No, they think that this one is due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
Have you not heard of the greenhouse effect, or are you unaware that we now have the greatest concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in more than 650 000 years?
Planting a forest only works if you're going to keep the carbon as wood.
When the tree dies it returns it's carbon to the atmosphere, much as the far-worse-than-carbon dioxide-by-mass methane. Now climate change can kill forests. In fact there is a danger that the mighty Amazon will go.
You really need to stop pumping carbon into the biosphere that hasn't been seen since the carboniferous era. Planting trees is just shuffling Carbon from atmosphere to wood and back again. (Although it does provide a nice place for birds to sit)
There are numerous proxies for temperature. Ice core studies use the proportion of deuterium to hydrogen in the ice is a sound local temperature proxy, since the water with deuterium in it requires more heat to evaporate it. This proxy correlates well with temperature measurements.
A mercury thermometer can measure relative temperature to within 0.1C. These have been around since 1714.
Indeed no. About 0.07%. (Yes that's not 7% and a typo, that's 7 parts in every 10 000.)
100 years.
No, the earth is experiencing global warming. Jupiter is experiencing a redistribution of temperature. (from your link: As a result, areas around the equator become warmer, while the poles can start to cool down.)
Possibly. I don't think that observed changes on Mars over the past 7 years are a good reason to ignore the measured and predicted effect on increasing greenhouse gasses here on earth over the past 100.
No it's not. CO2 levels are the highest in several million years, and temperatures are hotter than any time in the Holocene, which represents 7 ice-age cycles. This is new, and we know why it's happening, because the physics of greenhouse gasses is well understood.
This is sound jurisprudence.
There is not enough Lockean analysis done on IP law. It's property, so some of these laws need to stand up to the basis is Lockean theory.
Accoring to Locke, a person can acquire rights in property if the person appropriated resources from the common (which in the IP case, is the field of all possible ideas and symbolisations of those ideas), and mixed his labour with them. This transformed part of the common it into his property, defensible against the world. But you could not not take more than you could consume before the property spoiled, and you could not take so much that the community would be deprived by the loss from the common.
That means if intellectual property is infringing on you, it doesn't meet the standard for property, and a decent legal system should rule that it is in fact part of the common.
And if that's not on topic, I don't know what is.
This is another example of a solution to a real problem best solved with a biological system.
These are the reasons that you can argue to the most right-wing of dextrophiles of at least the economic value in preserving biodiversity.
But still we lose 50 species per day, forever. If you don't have the technology to fix it, you should be trying not to break it.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/ WindowsPrinciples.mspx
... crush the competition (which is OSS) in the courts.
11th tenet: "11. Availability of Microsoft patents. Microsoft will generally license patents on its operating system inventions (other than those that differentiate the appearance of Microsoft's products) on fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft's intellectual property rights."
This means that OS will not be licensed patents. Neither will anyone be licensed patents for free.
The MS strategy has not changed
I wonder how long it will take before the charge on the electron changes enough to require a significant redesign of the brain?
... perhaps Neanderthals were telepathic, and they dies out when the system fell out of tune.
In fact, I wonder if there are already disfunctions
Yes. $10 million annualised last quarter. Their monopoly would be worth more than the whole lot.
Yes, that is the worldwide income.
... that is a sure way to have someone else fill the gap.
But the idea is not to release the communications protocols for windows, since once released they will be used by compeditors the world over. So it is the worldwide income that microsoft will be writing this off against.
I can't see them abandoning the Eruopean market
$2.51 million per day is an operating expense, not a fine. Their revenue is $25 million per day.
I'm thinking the cost of having competition would be greater. If I were Microsoft, I'd just keep not complying. It's worked these past two years.
Kyoto puts a financial value on Greenhouse emissions, and therefore forces investment in developing those technologies that imporved GHGs. The USA's economy is more right wing than Europes. Ie. They sacrifice more economic growth for more social security. Slower growth is to be expected - you need to do better statistics to isolate the effect of Kyoto than that.
:Arbitrarily trying to limit carbon emissions, when billions of people who embrace modernity need energy and don't have alternatives, is a bad idea.
Futhermore euopean infrastructure has been converted to us infrastructure in Iraq by the war. US has stolen billions in oil from the Iraqi people through infrastructure invested in by the French (and Russians - but they aren't first world).
Compared to Kyoto requriements which are based on 1990 GHG emissions, the US has certainly not had greater improvements on GHG emissions. The US is lagging a long way in this.
re: we should fund more research for true, viable alternatives.
That is what Kyoto does. It provides a real economic reason for that development.
re
Carbon credits can also be bought and sold. Kyoto doesn't "Arbitrarity limit" - it provides a cost to the production.
When google grows up all your files and environment will be online, and you will do your computing through third party devices - like your phone or your watch or your tie or your fridge or your home entertainment centere or whatever. Air conditioning unit. Aibo. Car. These devices will be running "itdeosntmatterwhat"
... But I expect Solaris will be well optimised for the purpose ....
>>>to a superior security architecture which was less conducive to the remotely exploitable vulnerabilities IE has fallen victom to. Which they have. FF simply is more secure. There are far more high resk threats to IE. And FF does respond to what threats there are many times faster than IE, but that's less material than the fact that there are less serious threats. MS sells IE for the same price if it's insecure. More now that they are going into virus protection software. FF are simply trying to make a good product - and with the code exposed, this is sure to happen. Deal with it.
The google Sun Union could be great!
They could use their resources to provide peripheral support for the secure, clean, CuDDLy OS that is Solaris!
Then they could realease a bunch of 'puters with it pre-installed, and take Microsoft's market share to the dogs.
Then they could laugh at Steve.
It'll be great! OSes will sell for $12.50 again!!Where is the evidence?
Pretty much everywhere. If you google scholar global warming anthropogenic, Like so, you'll find that the literature pretty much accepts that global warming has a significant human created component.
This report was particularly telling in it's time. You have to read the whole whack if you want to believe it, but these charts tell the story they found, by evaluating a range of models that existed in 2001.
i.e. the observations just dont fit any model that doesn't include anthropogenic forcing.