Obviously not, but then I never demanded such a popsicle as satisfactory evidence in the first place.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people demanding to see a scanned version of a birth certificate on their PC and claiming it will satisfy them. In practice, as soon as such a scan is delivered, they'll claim it's a fake.
Sure, the resolution is quite poor, but all the information on the scan is legible, so why complain ? A higher resolution would be pointless. If it was fake, do you think Obama couldn't find anybody qualified enough to produce a realistic fake that's indiscernible from the real thing at any resolution ? It's not that hard. All you need is a blank certificate from that period, an old typewriter, some stamps, a pen, an afternoon of work, and a scanner.
Again the media and the politicians could have fixed the problem immediately by rescanning it and releasing it as a high resolution uncompressed TIFF or other file type. Something that would have taken only hours to do. This would have helped most of the general public understand easier and would have taken away most if not all the doubt, .
I'm sure they would still shout "THAT LOOKS FAKE". It wouldn't be that hard to create a perfect fake, so quality of the scan is meaningless. When people already have made up their minds, there's not much you can do.
They had good reasons to trust the older tree ring data, so that's why it was used. They knew there was a problem with recent tree ring data, so they didn't use that. It's as simple as that. This was well known, published, information, so the accusation of "fraud" has no merit.
Even now, years later, with many more different proxies added, the original "hockey stick" is still valid. If there was a fraud, surely somebody should be able to come up with better data.
The MSNBC article is poorly written. It claims there was talk about a "trick" to "hide the decline". That wording is a blatant misunderstanding of what was said in the e-mail.
The "trick" and "hide the decline" are two different things. The "trick" was just a method used to display two different measurements in the same graph. Both were clearly labelled as such, and published in 'Nature'.
The decline refers to tree ring data for a group of trees, that started to show a mismatch with the observed temperatures in the last couple of decades. This issue had been publicly discussed in scientific journals since 1995. This was not a secret, and they were not "discovered". It was a publicly known fact for years.
The only "fraud" was committed by some people who were a little bit too eager to misunderstand quotes taken out of their context.
If you don't trust the people, how would you know to trust their copy of the raw data ?
As with any other science, the best way is to redo the whole thing from scratch. Use your own data and calculations. Go drill your own ice cores and trees and collect your own thermometer data.
Can you give an example of a variable that has been changed to fit observations ?
Obviously some inputs to the model change, as data becomes available. After a volcanic eruption, the aerosol data is plugged into the model, for instance.
The original designs aren't very popular anymore. The oldest ARM that's still widely used is the ARM7, but some of the patents have already expired. The patent for Thumb support (6,021,265) was filed in April 14, 1997, so that hasn't expired yet. Of course, Thumb support is optional. The latest patent I can find for ARM-only, is nr 5,701,493, filed on August 3, 1995.
Once this is possible, it's a simple matter to require licenses for any and all software development
If that ever happens, it's a simple matter to also require licenses for any and all hardware development. Therefore, whatever your fears, this project isn't going to help.
FPGAs are fine for small designs, but a nice 32 bit pipelined RISC, with a decent cache, MMU, multiple buses, and a bunch of peripherals will require an expensive FPGA to run at a reasonable speed.
It would be smarter to go and buy a standard CPU. You can get a dual core (ARM9 + DSP) 300MHz OMAP for $30 in small quantities.
It all depends on the application. I think this deal could be interesting for big parties, already into building their own SoC on proprietary ASICs, but not quite big enough to license an ARM core.
For hobbyists and small time players, developing an ASIC, even together with other people, isn't really interesting. It's still very costly, and a lot of work if you want to make your own modifications or bug fixes.
Commercial 32 bit CPU chips are also very cheap. There's plenty of choice in the sub-$10 price range. Since every user a different requirements, it's hard to make an open source ASIC that they all want in sufficient quantities.
And who will guarantee the design will be continued after the first batch ?
True, there have been warm periods on the southern hemisphere as well, but they were all kind of shifted in time, not exactly at the same time.
The sun, by the way, hasn't gotten any stronger recently, so it can't be used as an explanation for the current rise in temperature. Since the 1980's the sun has actually become less active, exactly when the global temperature has climbed faster than before.
Slashdot Mirror
Intel has made ARM chips before (StrongARM and XScale) so it's not impossible.
Obviously not, but then I never demanded such a popsicle as satisfactory evidence in the first place.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people demanding to see a scanned version of a birth certificate on their PC and claiming it will satisfy them. In practice, as soon as such a scan is delivered, they'll claim it's a fake.
Sure, the resolution is quite poor, but all the information on the scan is legible, so why complain ? A higher resolution would be pointless. If it was fake, do you think Obama couldn't find anybody qualified enough to produce a realistic fake that's indiscernible from the real thing at any resolution ? It's not that hard. All you need is a blank certificate from that period, an old typewriter, some stamps, a pen, an afternoon of work, and a scanner.
Insanity is asking for proof, and then claiming it's fake, no matter what it looks like.
I'm sure they would still shout "THAT LOOKS FAKE". It wouldn't be that hard to create a perfect fake, so quality of the scan is meaningless. When people already have made up their minds, there's not much you can do.
The FritzBox ADSL modem/router has an menu where you can see your internet usage.
http://www.fritzbox.eu/en/index.php
They had good reasons to trust the older tree ring data, so that's why it was used. They knew there was a problem with recent tree ring data, so they didn't use that. It's as simple as that. This was well known, published, information, so the accusation of "fraud" has no merit.
Even now, years later, with many more different proxies added, the original "hockey stick" is still valid. If there was a fraud, surely somebody should be able to come up with better data.
The MSNBC article is poorly written. It claims there was talk about a "trick" to "hide the decline". That wording is a blatant misunderstanding of what was said in the e-mail.
The "trick" and "hide the decline" are two different things. The "trick" was just a method used to display two different measurements in the same graph. Both were clearly labelled as such, and published in 'Nature'.
The decline refers to tree ring data for a group of trees, that started to show a mismatch with the observed temperatures in the last couple of decades. This issue had been publicly discussed in scientific journals since 1995. This was not a secret, and they were not "discovered". It was a publicly known fact for years.
The only "fraud" was committed by some people who were a little bit too eager to misunderstand quotes taken out of their context.
Apparently, there was no fraud.
If you don't trust the people, how would you know to trust their copy of the raw data ?
As with any other science, the best way is to redo the whole thing from scratch. Use your own data and calculations. Go drill your own ice cores and trees and collect your own thermometer data.
Can you give an example of a variable that has been changed to fit observations ?
Obviously some inputs to the model change, as data becomes available. After a volcanic eruption, the aerosol data is plugged into the model, for instance.
The model doesn't have any free variables, only physical properties and physical laws, plus initial conditions.
And if you don't believe it, you can download the source code, and see for yourself. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/modelEsrc/
The common ancestor would also be classified as an 'ape'. It's just semantics.
You don't have to trust scientists. You are free to become an expert on the subject, perform your own research, and publish the results.
I see two very similar graphs. What's your point, exactly ?
The small differences are explained on the page where you found it: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html
On the contrary, making models and predictions based on theories is exactly what science is all about. That's how you test the theories.
Of course, the same models can also be verified with events that happened in the past, such as ice age cycles.
It is clear you have no idea what they were really talking about.
Enlighten yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
There are relatively few scientists in the field of climate science that question global warming. There are certainly not 'thousands'.
The original designs aren't very popular anymore. The oldest ARM that's still widely used is the ARM7, but some of the patents have already expired. The patent for Thumb support (6,021,265) was filed in April 14, 1997, so that hasn't expired yet. Of course, Thumb support is optional. The latest patent I can find for ARM-only, is nr 5,701,493, filed on August 3, 1995.
If that ever happens, it's a simple matter to also require licenses for any and all hardware development. Therefore, whatever your fears, this project isn't going to help.
FPGAs are fine for small designs, but a nice 32 bit pipelined RISC, with a decent cache, MMU, multiple buses, and a bunch of peripherals will require an expensive FPGA to run at a reasonable speed.
It would be smarter to go and buy a standard CPU. You can get a dual core (ARM9 + DSP) 300MHz OMAP for $30 in small quantities.
It all depends on the application. I think this deal could be interesting for big parties, already into building their own SoC on proprietary ASICs, but not quite big enough to license an ARM core.
For hobbyists and small time players, developing an ASIC, even together with other people, isn't really interesting. It's still very costly, and a lot of work if you want to make your own modifications or bug fixes.
Sure, you can always get more, but they may be very expensive, if you need only small quantities.
Commercial 32 bit CPU chips are also very cheap. There's plenty of choice in the sub-$10 price range. Since every user a different requirements, it's hard to make an open source ASIC that they all want in sufficient quantities.
And who will guarantee the design will be continued after the first batch ?
That only works when there are enough alternative ISPs serving the same area.
True, there have been warm periods on the southern hemisphere as well, but they were all kind of shifted in time, not exactly at the same time.
The sun, by the way, hasn't gotten any stronger recently, so it can't be used as an explanation for the current rise in temperature. Since the 1980's the sun has actually become less active, exactly when the global temperature has climbed faster than before.