Are you seriously suggesting El Nino, La Nina, the AMO and AO are all caused by the atmosphere?
No, I didn't suggest that. Those are just temporary fluctuations in the ocean/atmosphere heat flux. I was talking about the total energy in the ocean, which pretty much all comes from the atmosphere.
Who said the Sun heats up the oceans first? It heats up the oceans and the oceans release heat to the atmosphere.
Sun heats up atmosphere, atmosphere warms up oceans, and oceans put some of that heat back into atmosphere. In order for the oceans to warm up, the atmosphere must already be warmer than before. So, there's no way you can explain sudden warming from the atmosphere by ocean heat.
Solar and the PDO correlate far better with temperature than CO2 does.
No they don't, but feel free to add a link to a credible source to prove your point.
it seems to me that the relationship between the two is ocean -> atmosphere, not atmosphere -> ocean
Since there's no magical heat source at the bottom of the ocean, this is nonsense. The sun heats the earth at the surface, so that temperature of the atmosphere will start to warm up immediately. The oceans will catch up later, and as they do, the atmosphere will warm up some more.
the temperature rise we're seeing today was deposited into the ocean by the Sun approximately 100 years ago
Physically impossible. There's no way the sun is going to heat up the oceans first, and even if it did, it wouldn't take 100 years for the atmosphere to respond to the change. Also, the Sun's output has been remarkably constant over the past period.
Note that we aren't measuring (absolute) global surface temperature at all. What NASA is measuring is the temperature anomaly. The anomaly is the difference between the actual temperature, and the average of 1951-1980 for that same station. These anomalies are measured independently for each measuring station. The next step is to average all the anomalies, and this reduces the error quite a bit. The reason is that the anomalies for stations hundreds of miles apart are very well correlated, even though their absolute temperature could differ by tens of degrees.
A climate model is nothing more than a pure physical model of the earth. All you need to produce a graph from 1900 to 2010 is to plug in the initial conditions, and all external influences from 1900 onwards (solar output, atmospheric composition, volcanic eruptions). The model calculates what happens next. Temperatures are not plugged in the model, so please explain why you need a bigger sample.
For instance, if you choose Jan-Dec 2010, you'll see that Europe was on the cool side, the USA was only slight warmer, and that there are big red areas where nobody lives.
What's there not to understand about philosophy ? The only special philosophical knowledge is the jargon and the names of the philosophers who agree with you. The rest is just common sense.
I don't see the point of colonization either. It isn't going to help deal with overpopulation on earth, simply because the birth rate will overwhelm any kind of realistic launch capacity by many orders of magnitude. As far as "saving humanity", that's much easier to solve right here on earth. Even a one in a million year asteroid impact will most likely leave at least some people alive, and they'll have an easier time than a colony on Mars.
In order to look at a moving object with your center of vision, you need to track the object with your eyes. When you do that, it's not really moving anymore. So, the qualifier is implied.
Sure, but that's not the same silicon anymore. The original NMOS 6502 had certain quirks and bugs that changed or got fixed in later versions. For nostalgic reasons, people still like to preserve the design of the very first 6502.
The guys that are doing the 6502 simulator have been long aware of this. This is just an independent effort, with some overlap, and some novel stuff. For instance, the schematic doesn't show you the exact area of the transistors, which can be important. By comparing the two you can also identify some mistakes that were made in either process, which is never a bad thing.
It is a device that people tend to keep fully charged at all times, and it is a device which most people keep on their physical person whenever they can.
I put mine in my pants pocket, not on my person, and I take my pants off at night. Maybe I'm weird.
I guessed you missed the news about the arctic being really warm, above freezing temperatures in Iceland and the south of Greenland, and the Hudson bay still partially ice-free ? The cold weather we're experiencing in Europe, US, and Asia is due to frigid arctic air moving there. When that cold arctic air moves out, it doesn't leave a vacuum. Instead, it brings in warm air from the moderate zones.
Technically correct, but it's much more practical to put the source code on a public HTTP or FTP server where anybody can get it. Any extra effort to only allow your own customers is a waste of time and money.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I didn't suggest that. Those are just temporary fluctuations in the ocean/atmosphere heat flux. I was talking about the total energy in the ocean, which pretty much all comes from the atmosphere.
Sun heats up atmosphere, atmosphere warms up oceans, and oceans put some of that heat back into atmosphere. In order for the oceans to warm up, the atmosphere must already be warmer than before. So, there's no way you can explain sudden warming from the atmosphere by ocean heat.
No they don't, but feel free to add a link to a credible source to prove your point.
Since there's no magical heat source at the bottom of the ocean, this is nonsense. The sun heats the earth at the surface, so that temperature of the atmosphere will start to warm up immediately. The oceans will catch up later, and as they do, the atmosphere will warm up some more.
Physically impossible. There's no way the sun is going to heat up the oceans first, and even if it did, it wouldn't take 100 years for the atmosphere to respond to the change. Also, the Sun's output has been remarkably constant over the past period.
The temperatures need another century to catch up. There's plenty of inertia in the large volume of water in our oceans.
Note that we aren't measuring (absolute) global surface temperature at all. What NASA is measuring is the temperature anomaly. The anomaly is the difference between the actual temperature, and the average of 1951-1980 for that same station. These anomalies are measured independently for each measuring station. The next step is to average all the anomalies, and this reduces the error quite a bit. The reason is that the anomalies for stations hundreds of miles apart are very well correlated, even though their absolute temperature could differ by tens of degrees.
Melting ice is a good indication that it is really getting warmer, and that it's not just a bunch of measurement errors/cherry picking.
No, stations within 1000 km distance are actually very closely correlated in their temperature.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
A climate model is nothing more than a pure physical model of the earth. All you need to produce a graph from 1900 to 2010 is to plug in the initial conditions, and all external influences from 1900 onwards (solar output, atmospheric composition, volcanic eruptions). The model calculates what happens next. Temperatures are not plugged in the model, so please explain why you need a bigger sample.
If you look at the maps, you'll notice most of the recent warming was not near those areas.
Here you can play with the data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
For instance, if you choose Jan-Dec 2010, you'll see that Europe was on the cool side, the USA was only slight warmer, and that there are big red areas where nobody lives.
"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
-- Richard P. Feynman.
What's there not to understand about philosophy ? The only special philosophical knowledge is the jargon and the names of the philosophers who agree with you. The rest is just common sense.
I don't see the point of colonization either. It isn't going to help deal with overpopulation on earth, simply because the birth rate will overwhelm any kind of realistic launch capacity by many orders of magnitude. As far as "saving humanity", that's much easier to solve right here on earth. Even a one in a million year asteroid impact will most likely leave at least some people alive, and they'll have an easier time than a colony on Mars.
Sending humans to Mars is just a waste of time and money. For the same resources you can send a bunch of unmanned missions and accomplish more.
In order to look at a moving object with your center of vision, you need to track the object with your eyes. When you do that, it's not really moving anymore. So, the qualifier is implied.
Sure, but that's not the same silicon anymore. The original NMOS 6502 had certain quirks and bugs that changed or got fixed in later versions. For nostalgic reasons, people still like to preserve the design of the very first 6502.
The guys that are doing the 6502 simulator have been long aware of this. This is just an independent effort, with some overlap, and some novel stuff. For instance, the schematic doesn't show you the exact area of the transistors, which can be important. By comparing the two you can also identify some mistakes that were made in either process, which is never a bad thing.
"Careful with that axe, EMI"
I put mine in my pants pocket, not on my person, and I take my pants off at night. Maybe I'm weird.
By all means, feel free to submit better data.
What temperature slump ?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Ignoring the exceptional peak in 1998, every year after 1999 has been exceptionally warm, with 2010 about to break a new record.
You can always go out and do the research yourself. That way you don't have to rely on any data that you may not trust.
I guessed you missed the news about the arctic being really warm, above freezing temperatures in Iceland and the south of Greenland, and the Hudson bay still partially ice-free ? The cold weather we're experiencing in Europe, US, and Asia is due to frigid arctic air moving there. When that cold arctic air moves out, it doesn't leave a vacuum. Instead, it brings in warm air from the moderate zones.
Technically correct, but it's much more practical to put the source code on a public HTTP or FTP server where anybody can get it. Any extra effort to only allow your own customers is a waste of time and money.
I can see where writing something done can help in memorization, but that can also be done by copying (parts of) the textbook behind your own desk.
Maybe the best way to teach is by banning laptops...
Maybe. But on the other hand, taking notes may distract you from actually understanding the material that's being presented.