Of course they're not the same, otherwise we wouldn't need two words. But claiming that they aren't linked is just silly. The changes to the climate we've experienced so far are already exacerbating extreme weather events, e.g., causing more frequent, stronger, and longer heat waves, increasing the strength of hurricanes, etc.
Smoking isn't the same thing as lung cancer either, but I certainly wouldn't recommend picking up the habit.
Oh thank god. I couldn't handle another linguistic bombshell like "for all intensive purposes" actually being "intents and purposes"! That rocked my world when I was eleven, and I don't think I ever recovered.
Really is there any point in history, that you can look at and say the world would be better off if you could have erased America ?
Maybe ask the Native American tribes that question.
Arguing that today's violence is acceptable because the overall death toll is lower today than yesterday is weak. It's like saying you shouldn't complain about being locked up for no reason because your captors stopped beating you.
Driving on forest service roads and BLM lands probably doesn't apply to 99.9% of the population, but the general theme of having emergency supplies at the ready does. It would be prudent to have an emergency kit inside each service car in urban areas that could be accessed by the occupants in an emergency.
The cost of maintaining the supplies would be handled the same way as keeping the car clean by including it in the cost of the ride. And whoever used them could be charged for replacement if that is more efficient than spreading it over all riders.
Families with kids that carry around a larger assortment of "emergency" items may choose to own their own car for that time period and return to the service model once their grown enough to require a more manageable set of items. I really think a lot of these issues will be worked out pretty easily once the model takes off.
In addition to this, people will be plugging in to recharge at different times. Some nine-to-five people get home at 6pm and stay home with their families while others go out with friends and plug in later in the evening. And then there are the people on night and graveyard shifts. Add to that those with short commutes who will recharge minimally each day and others that will recharge at work.
Eventually, by exploiting a smart grid and your schedule, your car could delay charging for a few hours when it knows usage will be lower and prices cheaper.
Still, you only buy something if you believe it is worth the money. No ad holds a gun to your head and forces you to make a purchase. They only suggest that something is worth purchasing or that their brand is better than the competition... you ultimately make the decision what to buy, and most importantly, whether to buy it in the first place.
Modern advertising and PR learned quite a bit from the propaganda on both sides during WW2. It chooses music and images to elicit specific emotions such as feeling that something is missing in your life, or you're too fat, or that with this product people will like you. Have you noticed the recent uptick in television advertisements featuring veterans that have absolutely nothing to do with veterans?
"Oh thank God! She made it home in one piece, and her dog missed her so much. Now go buy whatever-the-fuck dogfood we're selling or you don't support our troops!"
Sure, there's no gun to your head. But the industry wouldn't spend billions of dollars doing it if it didn't increase sales. And every year they research new techniques to tug on your heartstrings or make you feel inadequate, and then they show you the product that will fill that void. Your mind is being programmed at every opportunity, and I believe you should have to opt in to it only if you want.
The two cars in front were stopped because traffic in their lane after the signal was also stopped. There was nowhere for them to go, and you aren't supposed to enter an intersection going straight until the lane ahead is clear.
I'm gonna have to go against the chorus and lay the blame at your feet, honestly. You left a booby trap for whoever rebooted that server at any point in the future. Had you removed the hard drive or put the machine into a donation pile, I could understand.
Say you get hit by a bus the next week and they hire a new sysadmin. A few days later he's asked to setup a new service and decides to repurpose that unused server. He connects it to the network, boots it, installs updates and new software . . . and then gets pulled onto some other task that takes a day. That night disaster strikes. Is it his fault for not ensuring there were no dangerous cron jobs left on the machine?
Perhaps, but it's much easier to disarm bombs you've designed rather than force the job onto some poor, unsuspecting sap.:)
But the reality is, most people do NOT have the luxury of having the time and resources to find the perfect job they love in order to work and make a living.
Certainly, but the author isn't asking what most people should do. He's been able to support his family for three years, and his wife has demonstrated the ability to learn Java and build enterprise software. I'm willing to bet she could transition to a related field (consulting, IT, a different language, etc.) quickly and with minimal additional training.
I see no point to rush immediately into the same type of job when a small investment could yield much better results for everyone.
Let me see if I've got this straight. The Sunday Times found some evidence which they presented to the UK government, and the government anonymously verified said evidence, but the Times decided to print only the government statements without the evidence?
Would I be entirely off the mark in guessing that the "evidence" also came from an anonymous government source? Oh right, this reporter "is sorry to disappoint you again," but he "does not know."
It seems to me that the Department of Disinformation is having a difficult time hiring quality employees.
While surface temperatures have slowed somewhat (though 2013 and 2014 saw them jump right back up), global warming itself--which includes ocean heat content, glacier and sea ice melting, and atmospheric temperatures in addition to surface temperatures--has not slowed. Their statements are consistent with this.
As evidenced by satellite data, the Earth has experienced a positive energy imbalance since 1950, accumulating more heat than it radiates into space. This additional heat warms the land, melts the ice, increases the air temperature, and accumulates in the ocean.
The 2014 global land-ocean temperature index data produced by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows an average rise of 0.12C per decade from 1950 to 2014. In 2012 Nuccitelli et al combined the ocean heat content measurements (surface and subsurface) with the land, ice and atmospheric measurements, showing a global energy increase of 20×10J since 1960.
There is a myth that global warming stopped in 1998—often called a pause or hiatus—because the surface air temperature rose only 0.05C per decade from 1998 to 2012 while atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
The myth ignores the surface temperature data before 1998 and after 2012. This is an example of cherry-picking: choosing a subset of data to fit an argument while ignoring the data that contradict it. By taking the fifteen year period starting in 1996, one could claim that global warming has increased since the rise for that period was 0.14C per decade. It is only by considering the entire dataset that we see an accurate picture.
The myth ignores the natural variability in the Earth’s climate due to trade winds, sun intensity, and volcanos and assumes the data measures only AGW (anthropogenic global warming). This is an example of misrepresentation. For example, due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation cycle, 1998 saw a particularly strong El Niño warming while 2012 saw a weak La Niña. This caused a considerable ENSO cooling during that period that partially masked the warming trend from AGW.
The myth jumps to the conclusion that a short-term slowdown in the temperature rise will continue forever. There have been similar short-term pauses throughout the twentieth century, but each was followed by a larger short-term rise that offset it. The long-term record shows a clear warming trend of 0.12C per decade.
Finally, the myth focuses on the surface air temperatures and ignores the increasing ocean heat content, increasing sea level, and decreasing arctic sea ice mass—another example of cherry-picking. For example, the Nuccitelli data shows an energy increase of 6×10J since 1998. Taken together, these demonstrate the simple fact that the Earth is warming overall, matching the satellite data.
No, a crack house in a mall would be immediately obvious as a mall only has a hundred or so stores. That's very easy to police.
It's more like a Public Storage with 180 million units containing 12 billion items where some percentage of them are illicit. Every so often the someone points out an infringing item and asks that it be removed. And every so often those items are not actually infringing.
The surface temperature is still warming, just less so. Instead, the energy is being absorbed by the oceans. A warmer ocean still melts sea ice and increases evaporation--another greenhouse gas.
The energy imbalance is still there, and the heat must go somewhere. Just because WUWT ignores that basic fact of physics and the data from the oceans doesn't change it.
You're assuming those that take the time to register and vote actually do study the issues. Do many look beyond the superficial sources and advertising, or do they base their vote on their neighbor's equally-uninformed opinion, the name of the initiative, or the candidate's party?
Hell, we'd probably get the same results without the exorbitant costs if we simply employed a giant lotto machine.
Slashdot Mirror
At last, our long, bloody war on seagulls may finally reach its conclusion!
Of course they're not the same, otherwise we wouldn't need two words. But claiming that they aren't linked is just silly. The changes to the climate we've experienced so far are already exacerbating extreme weather events, e.g., causing more frequent, stronger, and longer heat waves, increasing the strength of hurricanes, etc.
Smoking isn't the same thing as lung cancer either, but I certainly wouldn't recommend picking up the habit.
Sadly, that's still below the poverty level in the San Francisco Bay Area. :(
Oh thank god. I couldn't handle another linguistic bombshell like "for all intensive purposes" actually being "intents and purposes"! That rocked my world when I was eleven, and I don't think I ever recovered.
How silly of me. I forgot that past genocides excuse all future genocides.
But it already had a permanent name: Denali. What was the definition of permanently prior to 1896?
Maybe ask the Native American tribes that question.
Arguing that today's violence is acceptable because the overall death toll is lower today than yesterday is weak. It's like saying you shouldn't complain about being locked up for no reason because your captors stopped beating you.
Driving on forest service roads and BLM lands probably doesn't apply to 99.9% of the population, but the general theme of having emergency supplies at the ready does. It would be prudent to have an emergency kit inside each service car in urban areas that could be accessed by the occupants in an emergency.
The cost of maintaining the supplies would be handled the same way as keeping the car clean by including it in the cost of the ride. And whoever used them could be charged for replacement if that is more efficient than spreading it over all riders.
Families with kids that carry around a larger assortment of "emergency" items may choose to own their own car for that time period and return to the service model once their grown enough to require a more manageable set of items. I really think a lot of these issues will be worked out pretty easily once the model takes off.
In addition to this, people will be plugging in to recharge at different times. Some nine-to-five people get home at 6pm and stay home with their families while others go out with friends and plug in later in the evening. And then there are the people on night and graveyard shifts. Add to that those with short commutes who will recharge minimally each day and others that will recharge at work.
Eventually, by exploiting a smart grid and your schedule, your car could delay charging for a few hours when it knows usage will be lower and prices cheaper.
Certainly. But that doesn't mean our actions cannot be influenced by others, especially when those influences are subtle or act on the subconscious.
Were you replying to someone else? I wasn't calling for state action or regulation.
Still, you only buy something if you believe it is worth the money. No ad holds a gun to your head and forces you to make a purchase. They only suggest that something is worth purchasing or that their brand is better than the competition... you ultimately make the decision what to buy, and most importantly, whether to buy it in the first place.
Modern advertising and PR learned quite a bit from the propaganda on both sides during WW2. It chooses music and images to elicit specific emotions such as feeling that something is missing in your life, or you're too fat, or that with this product people will like you. Have you noticed the recent uptick in television advertisements featuring veterans that have absolutely nothing to do with veterans?
"Oh thank God! She made it home in one piece, and her dog missed her so much. Now go buy whatever-the-fuck dogfood we're selling or you don't support our troops!"
Sure, there's no gun to your head. But the industry wouldn't spend billions of dollars doing it if it didn't increase sales. And every year they research new techniques to tug on your heartstrings or make you feel inadequate, and then they show you the product that will fill that void. Your mind is being programmed at every opportunity, and I believe you should have to opt in to it only if you want.
The two cars in front were stopped because traffic in their lane after the signal was also stopped. There was nowhere for them to go, and you aren't supposed to enter an intersection going straight until the lane ahead is clear.
As opposed to a manned unmanned aerial vehicle?
I'm gonna have to go against the chorus and lay the blame at your feet, honestly. You left a booby trap for whoever rebooted that server at any point in the future. Had you removed the hard drive or put the machine into a donation pile, I could understand.
Say you get hit by a bus the next week and they hire a new sysadmin. A few days later he's asked to setup a new service and decides to repurpose that unused server. He connects it to the network, boots it, installs updates and new software . . . and then gets pulled onto some other task that takes a day. That night disaster strikes. Is it his fault for not ensuring there were no dangerous cron jobs left on the machine?
Perhaps, but it's much easier to disarm bombs you've designed rather than force the job onto some poor, unsuspecting sap. :)
But the reality is, most people do NOT have the luxury of having the time and resources to find the perfect job they love in order to work and make a living.
Certainly, but the author isn't asking what most people should do. He's been able to support his family for three years, and his wife has demonstrated the ability to learn Java and build enterprise software. I'm willing to bet she could transition to a related field (consulting, IT, a different language, etc.) quickly and with minimal additional training.
I see no point to rush immediately into the same type of job when a small investment could yield much better results for everyone.
What part of
makes you think she wants her husband to be the sole provider? Is there something wrong with wanting a rewarding career that you're passionate about?
Let me see if I've got this straight. The Sunday Times found some evidence which they presented to the UK government, and the government anonymously verified said evidence, but the Times decided to print only the government statements without the evidence?
Would I be entirely off the mark in guessing that the "evidence" also came from an anonymous government source? Oh right, this reporter "is sorry to disappoint you again," but he "does not know."
It seems to me that the Department of Disinformation is having a difficult time hiring quality employees.
While surface temperatures have slowed somewhat (though 2013 and 2014 saw them jump right back up), global warming itself--which includes ocean heat content, glacier and sea ice melting, and atmospheric temperatures in addition to surface temperatures--has not slowed. Their statements are consistent with this.
I can't wait for the Half-Life 3 hats and custom crowbars!
As evidenced by satellite data, the Earth has experienced a positive energy imbalance since 1950, accumulating more heat than it radiates into space. This additional heat warms the land, melts the ice, increases the air temperature, and accumulates in the ocean.
The 2014 global land-ocean temperature index data produced by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows an average rise of 0.12C per decade from 1950 to 2014. In 2012 Nuccitelli et al combined the ocean heat content measurements (surface and subsurface) with the land, ice and atmospheric measurements, showing a global energy increase of 20×10J since 1960.
There is a myth that global warming stopped in 1998—often called a pause or hiatus—because the surface air temperature rose only 0.05C per decade from 1998 to 2012 while atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise. This argument is flawed for several reasons.
The myth ignores the surface temperature data before 1998 and after 2012. This is an example of cherry-picking: choosing a subset of data to fit an argument while ignoring the data that contradict it. By taking the fifteen year period starting in 1996, one could claim that global warming has increased since the rise for that period was 0.14C per decade. It is only by considering the entire dataset that we see an accurate picture.
The myth ignores the natural variability in the Earth’s climate due to trade winds, sun intensity, and volcanos and assumes the data measures only AGW (anthropogenic global warming). This is an example of misrepresentation. For example, due to the El Niño Southern Oscillation cycle, 1998 saw a particularly strong El Niño warming while 2012 saw a weak La Niña. This caused a considerable ENSO cooling during that period that partially masked the warming trend from AGW.
The myth jumps to the conclusion that a short-term slowdown in the temperature rise will continue forever. There have been similar short-term pauses throughout the twentieth century, but each was followed by a larger short-term rise that offset it. The long-term record shows a clear warming trend of 0.12C per decade.
Finally, the myth focuses on the surface air temperatures and ignores the increasing ocean heat content, increasing sea level, and decreasing arctic sea ice mass—another example of cherry-picking. For example, the Nuccitelli data shows an energy increase of 6×10J since 1998. Taken together, these demonstrate the simple fact that the Earth is warming overall, matching the satellite data.
You can find more at Skeptical Science.
No, a crack house in a mall would be immediately obvious as a mall only has a hundred or so stores. That's very easy to police.
It's more like a Public Storage with 180 million units containing 12 billion items where some percentage of them are illicit. Every so often the someone points out an infringing item and asks that it be removed. And every so often those items are not actually infringing.
The surface temperature is still warming, just less so. Instead, the energy is being absorbed by the oceans. A warmer ocean still melts sea ice and increases evaporation--another greenhouse gas. The energy imbalance is still there, and the heat must go somewhere. Just because WUWT ignores that basic fact of physics and the data from the oceans doesn't change it.
According to ice core samples going back 400 thousand years, the historical maximum was 300ppm until 1950.
The "play-worthy" version uses 64-bit bytes.
You're assuming those that take the time to register and vote actually do study the issues. Do many look beyond the superficial sources and advertising, or do they base their vote on their neighbor's equally-uninformed opinion, the name of the initiative, or the candidate's party?
Hell, we'd probably get the same results without the exorbitant costs if we simply employed a giant lotto machine.