For a start, you do realise that for data like this destruction of the physical storage medium is a requirement, right? (It's right there in the article)
1. Pick up servers 2. Drop in industrial shredder 3. ??? 4. Profit 400.000 pounds
What good is a 2TB disk of photos if you're not going to look at them later ? It's the worst solution, because it means that you're also not going to look at the 10 really good shots hidden in the thousands of mediocre ones.
The beauty of digital photography is that you can fit a life's worth of digital photo's on a single hard drive that somebody else can toss in the garbage without looking at it. Much better than those bulky albums people used to have.
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
You still don't get it. The term 'climate' is defined as the average global weather over a period of 30 years. Now, you can argue about the 30 years, and while it is certainly useful to look at averages over shorter periods of time, the expression "climate 100 days from now" cannot be interpreted in any way that makes sense.
You can ask about average global temperatures in 100 days. This cannot be predicted accurately, because we cannot predict ocean currents, and therefore we don't know how heat will be distributed between atmosphere and oceans.
Simple. Arctic ice extent is mostly a function of local conditions, while 2010 being the warmest year is a global average. The low 2007 ice extend was due to some unusual weather patterns that we don't get every single year.
Re:Alternate hypothesis and bet
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
Except that solar output has recently peaked around 1980, and has slowly declined since then. In the same time frame, global temperatures have accelerated upwards.
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
If you can predict the weather 100 years from now you had better be able to predict the weather 100 days from now
Predicting climate is not the same as predicting weather. One deals with average global temperature over a long period of time, and the other deals with local variations on a short timescale. "climate" is basically an indication of the total amount of thermal energy in the earth system, whereas "weather" describes exactly how that energy is distributed at any given time.
predictions made so far by the AGW community have so far been totally wrong
There's no debate in the scientific literature. Obviously, there's a debate among laymen.
Re:Average Temperature
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 5, Informative
They don't take an average absolute temperature, but an average temperature anomaly, which makes a lot more sense. At each station, they measure the temperature difference between the current temperature, and a 30-year base period. Research has shown there's a good correlation between anomalies of different measuring stations, even if separated by hundreds of miles, even though the absolute temperatures between those same stations could differ by ten degrees or more.
Slashdot Mirror
2 times 60,000 GB is only 0.12 PB.
1. Pick up servers
2. Drop in industrial shredder
3. ???
4. Profit 400.000 pounds
What good is a 2TB disk of photos if you're not going to look at them later ? It's the worst solution, because it means that you're also not going to look at the 10 really good shots hidden in the thousands of mediocre ones.
The beauty of digital photography is that you can fit a life's worth of digital photo's on a single hard drive that somebody else can toss in the garbage without looking at it. Much better than those bulky albums people used to have.
Only save the photos that you will actually take the time to see in a few years time. Delete the rest.
Of course, this is only an option for satellites that are already in a low earth orbit. A geostationary satellite is going to need more than a nudge.
Only as a theoretical possibility. Currently their process runs at 0.7-0.8%, and it also involves solar concentrators with all the disadvantages.
That's why I said "often", and not "always".
If you're using 50% of your "comcast cap", and you're paying a fixed price for your monthly bandwith, the extra 1% doesn't cost anything extra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost
Sure, but a poor efficiency is going to make it harder to get a good EROEI ratio.
If the EROEI is negative, there's no point at all. You'd be better off leaving those barrels in the ground, and use them later.
The marginal cost of receiving data is often zero.
Never underestimate the cost of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
If it's not good enough, we should have more research, not less.
And the efficiency is still extremely poor.
You still don't get it. The term 'climate' is defined as the average global weather over a period of 30 years. Now, you can argue about the 30 years, and while it is certainly useful to look at averages over shorter periods of time, the expression "climate 100 days from now" cannot be interpreted in any way that makes sense.
You can ask about average global temperatures in 100 days. This cannot be predicted accurately, because we cannot predict ocean currents, and therefore we don't know how heat will be distributed between atmosphere and oceans.
Simple. Arctic ice extent is mostly a function of local conditions, while 2010 being the warmest year is a global average. The low 2007 ice extend was due to some unusual weather patterns that we don't get every single year.
Instead of focusing on the outliers, look at the big picture, and the long term trend:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nhem.jpg
Even better is to look at the ice volume, rather than just the surface area. Despite the fact that area has recovered from the all time low in 2007, the volume has continued to decline.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Except that solar output has recently peaked around 1980, and has slowly declined since then. In the same time frame, global temperatures have accelerated upwards.
Predicting climate is not the same as predicting weather. One deals with average global temperature over a long period of time, and the other deals with local variations on a short timescale. "climate" is basically an indication of the total amount of thermal energy in the earth system, whereas "weather" describes exactly how that energy is distributed at any given time.
Actually, the model output has been quite successful:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
The effects of the last glacial period ended about 8000 years ago. It has been stable, or slightly cooling since then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
There's no debate in the scientific literature. Obviously, there's a debate among laymen.
They don't take an average absolute temperature, but an average temperature anomaly, which makes a lot more sense. At each station, they measure the temperature difference between the current temperature, and a 30-year base period. Research has shown there's a good correlation between anomalies of different measuring stations, even if separated by hundreds of miles, even though the absolute temperatures between those same stations could differ by ten degrees or more.
See here for more info:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
What about regular books ? Crisper fonts, and better contrast compared to e-readers.
US is only 2% of the world, so no, that's not a big enough sample. Weather station density is irrelevant.
Why does your 'credible' source use local US temperature graphs instead of global ones ?