I find that almost impossible to believe. In fact, so impossible to believe, I'm either thinking you're making it up for your own amusement, or you needed to get out of that place ASAP in any case.
Have you people never heard of a Single Board Computer before? This is hardly a technological breakthrough. Interesting pet project, but we've been using devices like this (the one we have at the moment runs CE) for years.
I was convinced there was more to this after reading Calder's book, "The Chilling Stars", quite some time ago. This experiment simply adds to the evidence gathered and presented there. The next question concerns the growth of CCN after this initial formation of small sized particles. It's interesting to me that this is immediately dismissed by hockey-stick fiddlers. There is a certain closed-mindedness to anything other than the current dogma in certain circles.
I was stupid enough to pay nearly £100 for a razer mouse. It freezes every now and then (disconnect then reconnect USB to get it working); something that didn't happen with my previous logitech "noob" mouse. I only continue using it now because of the huge hit of cognitive dissonance I would get if I actually admitted it's crap. So, if this laptop is anything like their mice, I don't think I'll be buying one.
I used to think just like you, until I discovered boost::shared_ptr and boost::weak_ptr (now part of the standard). I now have automatic deterministic garbage collection. The only caution is to take care not to create cycles (use weak_ptr to break one). You still have to be aware of object lifetime, but you almost never have to worry about your objects being disposed in an orderly manner. I cringe when I see code that contains the keyword "delete".
Has there ever been an ID game that wasn't kind-of "goofy"? Ok, their early stuff like Doom and Quake were genuinely great fun to play, but ID don't do narrative, story-telling or anything like that and never have. Doom 3 was the last ID game I played. As I've got older, I've started needing some interest other than flashy graphics to attract me to play.
Anyway as a software developer who works in graphics, I'll be interested to see the meta-texture demo.
Careful. The reason my karma is -1 is because I made some similar posts about environmentalist nut-jobs. Slashdot is astro-turfed by the Green lobby ironically enough (as the Greens are generally anti-technocracy, as described very well by Konrad Lorenz in his famous 60's anti-capitalist diatribe).
There are plenty of reasons to doubt the science, that are completely ignored by the mainstream media, especially where the IPCC is involved. For example, in the 1995 IPCC report, the summary for policy makers originally read as follows:
None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.
No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.
While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions for which there is little justification.
Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.
When will an anthropogenic effect on climate change be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, We do not know.‘
Ben Santer was instructed to prevailed upon to change it to:
The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global
climate.
Of course, you are probably completely unaware of this.
The DDT story is an interesting one. It was banned after a big eco-hoo-haa, and a few decades and millions of dead Malaria victims later, it was unbanned because the science that provoked the ban in the first place turned out to be wrong. There's a lesson here somewhere, but as my karma is already low for expressing green cynicism on slashdot, I won't bother to make it.
Do you come on every thread with a vaguely green theme and spew horseshit?
Do you view every argument contrary to yours as "horseshit"? Is this what passes as a valid point at slashdot? I know the group-think here is beyond parody, because I get marked "troll" for expressing a cynical or sceptical view of green issues. There's quite a lot of horse-shit in the green movement that people like you never criticise. It's narcissistic and conceited of you to suppose that simply having a contrary opinion must, by definition, mean I'm wrong.
In case you hadn't noticed, the US gov't has funded and fought wars to maintain stability of oil and other fossil fuel supplies.
Irrelevant conjecture.
These wars cost a material percentage of the US's wealth, which is certainly not true for renewables.
The definitive argument on fossil fuel subsidy is from a 2007 Greenpeace paper. In it the definition of what is a subsidy is so broad as to be comical. For example, it argues that spending money on building roads is a subsidy for fossil fuels, which is perhaps one of the most cretinous and idiotic arguments I think I've ever heard (no doubt one you would subscribe to). However even this is wrong, because the government raises more in road tax than it spends building highways. Simply put, Greenpeace are full of the very horse shit you accuse me of spouting.
The fact remains that the definition of a subsidy is (OECD):
...a subsidy payable per unit of a good or service produced, either as a specific amount of money per unit of quantity of a good or service or as a specified percentage of the price per unit; it may also be calculated as the difference between a specified target price and the market price actually paid by a buyer.
Nowhere does this definition involve government spending on other products that may be tenuously related to the actual product under discussion. As I said in the post you accuse of being horseshit, your argument fails for this reason, and others that brevity prevents me from enumerating.
But even worse than this, the idea that renewables just need to receive government support to become economic is completely false. They need government support because they are not economic compared to the alternatives, and only by artificially increasing the price of these other forms of energy do they become so. Let us put aside the fact that they do not reduce CO2 output in the slightest (because by raising the cost of energy you simply direct your energy intensive industry to countries like China, where more CO2 is produced per unit of production than in the somewhat more regulated West) and consider something like wind power. In order to replace a single coal fired power station, you would need to cover an area the size of Greater London with turbines. Moreover, you must also build the power station you are seeking to replace because wind turbines are under 20% efficient and are not generating power continuously. You can't just switch a power station on or off when you feel like it; you must keep it running all of the time so it's ready to supply electricity when the wind stops blowing. Now you tell me, why on Earth would anyone think such an energy policy was a good idea?
The AGW issue is simply a fig-leaf for the sons and daughters of Konrad Lorenz, with their anti-technocratic world-view, to attack Capitalism and big business. From the government's point of view, it is a means to an end (the West's energy security). For scientists it's the difference between grant application success and failure. For the rest of us it means taxes, restrictions on freedoms, and decreasing trust in science and scientists. In short, what's not to like about it?
It is in the original paper. Please at least read the abstract before commenting:
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.
There follows some variable fiddling and statistical shenanigans with an over-parametised model to achieve the required explanation.
It's almost impossible to compete with the vast fossil fuel subsidies. People who mock the costs of alternative energy sources seem to forget that one of the chief reasons they aren't competitive is that any subsidies they may get are dwarfed by what is handed over to oil companies.
By your logic, the 60% I don't pay in direct taxation on my earnings are a "subsidy" from government. Your argument seems to be based on the government owning 100% of GDP and then being kind enough to give some of it back to us for good behaviour. I'm afraid this kind of thinking went out of fashion with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The IPCC puts sensitivity to CO2 to be ~1.2C. Some scientists think it's 1C, others less. Computer models managed to exaggerate it from 4 - 15C, with feedbacks. But the models are demonstrably wrong, i.e. they are excellent at hind-casting (they are essentially curve fitting on previous temperatures, so you would expect that) but useless at forecasting. Governments are spending billions on the paradigm. Compare and contrast the amount of research funding and consequently the number of "climate science" papers published today compared to 30 years ago. Al Gore made millions by selling out his share of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, just before it went bust (as well as making a hundred thousand per speech and as well as investing in "green" technologies that are subsidised themselves by government).
None of the above is particularly controversial. The only problem here is that you seek out and read articles that support what you already think, rather than reading articles critical of your world view. That is why you don't know anything contrary to it.
But it isn't a lie. It's a fact. Billions of dollars are being poured into climate research by tax-payers. That is an order of magnitude more than corporations are spending on the sceptical viewpoint. None of that money would be available to these institutions and researchers if the conclusion was, "climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is ~1C and in other news, increasing CO2 makes plants grow more vigorously". Al Gore has made millions from this fraud. But you people are completely blind to these things.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that almost impossible to believe. In fact, so impossible to believe, I'm either thinking you're making it up for your own amusement, or you needed to get out of that place ASAP in any case.
Corruption in Russian government. This is news?
Sorry, it was. It should have been CLOUD graph - because CLOUD is the name of the experiment.
Have you people never heard of a Single Board Computer before? This is hardly a technological breakthrough. Interesting pet project, but we've been using devices like this (the one we have at the moment runs CE) for years.
Yes. That's why I'm currently -1!
I'm honestly not sure how you can come to this conclusion. Look at the graph:
Cloud Graph.
I was convinced there was more to this after reading Calder's book, "The Chilling Stars", quite some time ago. This experiment simply adds to the evidence gathered and presented there. The next question concerns the growth of CCN after this initial formation of small sized particles. It's interesting to me that this is immediately dismissed by hockey-stick fiddlers. There is a certain closed-mindedness to anything other than the current dogma in certain circles.
I was stupid enough to pay nearly £100 for a razer mouse. It freezes every now and then (disconnect then reconnect USB to get it working); something that didn't happen with my previous logitech "noob" mouse. I only continue using it now because of the huge hit of cognitive dissonance I would get if I actually admitted it's crap. So, if this laptop is anything like their mice, I don't think I'll be buying one.
I used to think just like you, until I discovered boost::shared_ptr and boost::weak_ptr (now part of the standard). I now have automatic deterministic garbage collection. The only caution is to take care not to create cycles (use weak_ptr to break one). You still have to be aware of object lifetime, but you almost never have to worry about your objects being disposed in an orderly manner. I cringe when I see code that contains the keyword "delete".
I played it. Quite enjoyed it actually (was a surprise).
Has there ever been an ID game that wasn't kind-of "goofy"? Ok, their early stuff like Doom and Quake were genuinely great fun to play, but ID don't do narrative, story-telling or anything like that and never have. Doom 3 was the last ID game I played. As I've got older, I've started needing some interest other than flashy graphics to attract me to play.
Anyway as a software developer who works in graphics, I'll be interested to see the meta-texture demo.
Careful. The reason my karma is -1 is because I made some similar posts about environmentalist nut-jobs. Slashdot is astro-turfed by the Green lobby ironically enough (as the Greens are generally anti-technocracy, as described very well by Konrad Lorenz in his famous 60's anti-capitalist diatribe).
Not all scientists do that. In fact there's a reason why the phrase, "science progresses one funeral at a time", is so often correct.
My post was meant to be irony. Are you from the US?
None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.
No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.
While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions for which there is little justification.
Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.
When will an anthropogenic effect on climate change be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, We do not know.‘
Ben Santer was instructed to prevailed upon to change it to:
The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate.
Of course, you are probably completely unaware of this.
Kerry Katona is going to have trouble keeping up with her mortgage payments now.
The DDT story is an interesting one. It was banned after a big eco-hoo-haa, and a few decades and millions of dead Malaria victims later, it was unbanned because the science that provoked the ban in the first place turned out to be wrong. There's a lesson here somewhere, but as my karma is already low for expressing green cynicism on slashdot, I won't bother to make it.
Do you come on every thread with a vaguely green theme and spew horseshit?
Do you view every argument contrary to yours as "horseshit"? Is this what passes as a valid point at slashdot? I know the group-think here is beyond parody, because I get marked "troll" for expressing a cynical or sceptical view of green issues. There's quite a lot of horse-shit in the green movement that people like you never criticise. It's narcissistic and conceited of you to suppose that simply having a contrary opinion must, by definition, mean I'm wrong.
In case you hadn't noticed, the US gov't has funded and fought wars to maintain stability of oil and other fossil fuel supplies.
Irrelevant conjecture.
These wars cost a material percentage of the US's wealth, which is certainly not true for renewables.
The definitive argument on fossil fuel subsidy is from a 2007 Greenpeace paper. In it the definition of what is a subsidy is so broad as to be comical. For example, it argues that spending money on building roads is a subsidy for fossil fuels, which is perhaps one of the most cretinous and idiotic arguments I think I've ever heard (no doubt one you would subscribe to). However even this is wrong, because the government raises more in road tax than it spends building highways. Simply put, Greenpeace are full of the very horse shit you accuse me of spouting.
The fact remains that the definition of a subsidy is (OECD):
...a subsidy payable per unit of a good or service produced, either as a specific amount of money per unit of quantity of a good or service or as a specified percentage of the price per unit; it may also be calculated as the difference between a specified target price and the market price actually paid by a buyer.
Nowhere does this definition involve government spending on other products that may be tenuously related to the actual product under discussion. As I said in the post you accuse of being horseshit, your argument fails for this reason, and others that brevity prevents me from enumerating.
But even worse than this, the idea that renewables just need to receive government support to become economic is completely false. They need government support because they are not economic compared to the alternatives, and only by artificially increasing the price of these other forms of energy do they become so. Let us put aside the fact that they do not reduce CO2 output in the slightest (because by raising the cost of energy you simply direct your energy intensive industry to countries like China, where more CO2 is produced per unit of production than in the somewhat more regulated West) and consider something like wind power. In order to replace a single coal fired power station, you would need to cover an area the size of Greater London with turbines. Moreover, you must also build the power station you are seeking to replace because wind turbines are under 20% efficient and are not generating power continuously. You can't just switch a power station on or off when you feel like it; you must keep it running all of the time so it's ready to supply electricity when the wind stops blowing. Now you tell me, why on Earth would anyone think such an energy policy was a good idea?
The AGW issue is simply a fig-leaf for the sons and daughters of Konrad Lorenz, with their anti-technocratic world-view, to attack Capitalism and big business. From the government's point of view, it is a means to an end (the West's energy security). For scientists it's the difference between grant application success and failure. For the rest of us it means taxes, restrictions on freedoms, and decreasing trust in science and scientists. In short, what's not to like about it?
Fixed it for you.
There follows some variable fiddling and statistical shenanigans with an over-parametised model to achieve the required explanation.
It's almost impossible to compete with the vast fossil fuel subsidies. People who mock the costs of alternative energy sources seem to forget that one of the chief reasons they aren't competitive is that any subsidies they may get are dwarfed by what is handed over to oil companies.
By your logic, the 60% I don't pay in direct taxation on my earnings are a "subsidy" from government. Your argument seems to be based on the government owning 100% of GDP and then being kind enough to give some of it back to us for good behaviour. I'm afraid this kind of thinking went out of fashion with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The IPCC puts sensitivity to CO2 to be ~1.2C. Some scientists think it's 1C, others less. Computer models managed to exaggerate it from 4 - 15C, with feedbacks. But the models are demonstrably wrong, i.e. they are excellent at hind-casting (they are essentially curve fitting on previous temperatures, so you would expect that) but useless at forecasting. Governments are spending billions on the paradigm. Compare and contrast the amount of research funding and consequently the number of "climate science" papers published today compared to 30 years ago. Al Gore made millions by selling out his share of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, just before it went bust (as well as making a hundred thousand per speech and as well as investing in "green" technologies that are subsidised themselves by government).
None of the above is particularly controversial. The only problem here is that you seek out and read articles that support what you already think, rather than reading articles critical of your world view. That is why you don't know anything contrary to it.
I think you need to read the book "What's Left?: How Liberals lost their way" in order to understand why there is some confusion here.
Exactly. But don't bother telling people here. They don't want to know.
See what I mean? You don't want to know about how the other side is funded. You've got your fingers in your ears, so to speak.
But it isn't a lie. It's a fact. Billions of dollars are being poured into climate research by tax-payers. That is an order of magnitude more than corporations are spending on the sceptical viewpoint. None of that money would be available to these institutions and researchers if the conclusion was, "climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is ~1C and in other news, increasing CO2 makes plants grow more vigorously". Al Gore has made millions from this fraud. But you people are completely blind to these things.