I didn't realize that even IE7 was that pathetic; it doesn't even see the difference between a 'name' and an 'id' attribute.
Very happy that I'm not web-developing any more.
Great that it's not an important failure for you guys. I'm really impressed with it. I didn't know there was such a professional amateur rocketry club in Europe. Way to go Danes:-)
If you look at the hi-speed movie, you can see that their exhaust nozzle ring gets blown off after a few seconds (no timestamp on the video).
I love what they're doing, but they're not there yet unfortunately.
Bart
As far as the modelling goes. I have built too many models to trust them when the basic science is not understood in detail. It's dead easy to model something that models the past, just put in enough parameters.
On another issue; of those 2500 scientists only 500 actually 'have something to do with climate' so I'm still not impressed. Furthermore, a large part of the IPCC work has to do with collecting climate change data, and not with the causes of that change, so the actual number of scientists thinking quantitatively about that is still lower. All in all science is not settled by quantity and groupthink. Also the politicised nature of the IPCC where its chairman calls Svensmark 'irresponsible' because his ideas don't fit in the consensus is insane, and thoroughly discredits its summary for policymakers.
Anyway, I will read the link you mentioned, if you promise me you'll read the arxiv.org link to Nir Shaviv:-)
Gday mate.
There has been a trend over the last decades of ca. 2%. See 'Long term residual modulation of lower energy galactic cosmic rays' by H. S. Ahluwalia and C. Lopate. Google for 'icrc 2001 Ahluwahlia' and you'll find the conference proceedings.
I don't find realclimate.org very informative, it's more of an activist site. You will not find information that disagrees with Michael Mann there, unless he has managed to really stomp the counter arguments into the ground.
I find the IPCC error bars on the influence of the sun much too small and based mostly on the change in TSI.
I am really skeptical about this whole field of research, which has become hugely religious, and for me the eye opener has been a lecture by this already mentioned Bas van Geel. Later I was told directly by the main climate adviser of the Dutch government (Dr. Lucas Reijnders) that the GCM outputs proved that the CO2 was the cause of the warm period we're currently in. At that point my bullshit detector went into overdrive, and I started looking if there were more scientists that don't agree with this 'the science is settled'. It turns out there are actually quite a few, and I've read some scientific articles, including the one by Nir Shaviv that I linked at.
My conclusion is therefore that it's still pretty much an open question what percentage of the recent warming is CO2 driven. I'm not an expert in this, so I can't say. I'm sure we'll know in a decade or so.
In the mean time it's ofcourse an excellent idea to start living more energy efficient lives, but we don't need to get all panicky, and we really shouldn't begin geo-engineering efforts when we really don't know what we're messing with.
Look here, I'm not saying the planet is not somewhat warmer today than it was a century ago. I'm just saying that I doubt that CO2 is the cause of that because even in these last 100 years there is not a good correlation between CO2 and temperature.
If you're interested in some of the deeper thinkers that think the sun is the more important player in climate, have a look at Nir Shaviv and especially On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
oh one more thing: The IPCC mentions a very low LOSU:
Solar forcing remains the same as in the SAR, in terms of best estimate, the uncertainty range and the confidence level. Thus, the range is 0.1 to 0.5 Wm-2 with a best estimate of 0.3 Wm-2, and with a very low Level Of Scientific Understanding.
Don't believe me? Here's their link So don't mind me if I don't take all these "it can't be the sun" arguments very seriously.
I'm a physicist, I know about the laboratory scale effect of CO2. However, what is far from uncertain is how far this effect is actually influencing climate, because of the awfully complicated feedback mechanisms (plant growth, albedo changes, clouds, aerosols,...)
A recent paper by Nir Shaviv estimates that 0.49+-0.12K of the warming of the last century has been caused by changes in TSI together with changes in solar magnetic field that modulate the GCR flux (the link is in one of my previous posts).
What do I care about George Will, he's just a reporter. I'm more interested in the informed knowledge of Bas van Geel for instance, Professor of Paleo-Ecology of the University of Amsterdam, who is also completely unconvinced about CO2 being such an important factor.
Climatologists have indeed discounted the change of TSI as the cause of the warm late 20th century. None of the sceptics deny that. What they point out very clearly from historical records (google for Be-10 treerings) is that there must be a large amplification factor.
All in all, they only proof anyone has offered that it's CO2 that is the main cause of the warm 20th century is the output of global circulation models. I just don't buy that, and there's plenty of observational evidence that points to the lack of importance of CO2, such as the recent fact that the average global temperature was pretty much steady (or slightly dropping) between 1940 and 1975, while the CO2 was rising continuously. Similarly for the last 10 years or so, where the temperature also has not risen while we were pumping out CO2 at an increasing rate.
Nope, the plot you linked to is not what I'm talking about, as you can see from the averaged curve it averages over much shorter periods. I mentioned 30 years (ca. 3 solar cycles) to see some sort of cumulative effect. The correlation is much stronger, and nicely shows the warming trend of the later part of the last century.
It seems the warming has essentially stopped the last 10 years, which is also consistent with a sun that is becoming less active. We'll definitely know in a few years because it looks like the sun is going into a very low activity cycle, and if that's as important as I think it is, we'll start to get more cooling years (like the last one).
As for the observed temprature change being too small to affect large scale environmental change this is a silly argument that is easily debunked by observing Artic sea ice, it's like saying a teaspoon of sugar in your tank can't possibly do any harm to your engine
What are you doing on a site for nerds? You should know that our friends the Mythbusters have busted this whole sugar in tank myth. This myth probably has the same level of validity as all those hysterical AGW claims.
P.S. Did you all know the sun is going into a magnetically very quiet period? We will know within a few years if the sun is the more important climate driver or CO2. For more information have a look at Watts Up With That.
Second, the possible effects of a slight increase in solar intensity have been noted. They are too small to account for the increase in atmospheric temperature if they exist. And even the largest potential effect could only account for about a quarter of the warming that has been observed.
Now it's exactly here where the science is not settled. See for instance this very recent article by Nir Shaviv, where he calculates the effect of the sun on the total ocean heat content.
Quote:
Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47+-0.19 K, while the rest should be mainly
attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in
solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 +- 0.04 K.
Considering the global temperature rise in the 20th century of roughly 0.7K (+- observation errors) it seems that most (if not all) of the temperature change could be explained by the sun.
All in all this is still very much active science, only the politics seems to be settled.
Also, for all of us who doubt all the global warming CO2 spoonfeeding, that would like do have some DIY experience; do these steps;
download sunspot data for the previous century from somewhere
sum those data over 30 years
compare those to any of the global temperature datasets
Did you know that there were about twice as many sunspots in the last decades of the previous century as in the early 1900s? And three times as many as in 1830?
Bart
P.S. did you know that the Global Circulation Models outputs that are being used to predict the future don't actually have confidence intervals in them? The modellers do a lot of different runs, with different outputs (say between 1.5K and 6K increase in one century) and then confidently claim the 1.5-6K as a confidence interval, as if that means that the future is going to be within that range with that unspecified confidence. Whereas if these models are even 1% off in total albedo, they'll be so wildly wrong it's not funny anymore.
You want past climate reconstruction using a computer model. For the last 1000 years? I'm pretty sure that with a model with 1000 parameters I can hit every year within 0.01C. Probably only about 20 parameters should be plenty to get within 0.1C or so.
Really. These climate models should be taken with a huge grain of salt! And re-creation of the past should really not be taken as proof of validity!
For the last 8 years I've pretty much only used Linux, and my experience has been that whenever the machine suddenly becomes consistently slow (not just a few seconds because of updatedb), it's a DNS issue. Maybe you have a primary DNS that times out and then fails over to a second one or so. That's my rule of thumb, and it has served me well.
What a load of bull... And define cups of coffee: the big mugs of strong stuff we drink here in the Netherlands, or the slightly stained warm water of the U.S. or the tarmac residue in Turkey.
We moved our project from 2.4 to 2.6 during development, because the maximum interrupt latency of 2.6 is so much better. We needed to handle UDP packets within 20 ms. max and occasionally on 2.4 we would have a 60 or more. Going to 2.6 solved our problems immediately, even with early versions.
Slashdot Mirror
be careful mentioning this, someone modded me troll for saying pretty much the same thing. :-)
I didn't realize that even IE7 was that pathetic; it doesn't even see the difference between a 'name' and an 'id' attribute.
Very happy that I'm not web-developing any more.
Great that it's not an important failure for you guys. I'm really impressed with it. I didn't know there was such a professional amateur rocketry club in Europe. Way to go Danes :-)
I don't know actually because the hispeed timestamp is not showing. But the nozzle separates at 2 minutes 2 seconds on the video
video 2:02. Exhaust nozzle lives 2 seconds
If you look at the hi-speed movie, you can see that their exhaust nozzle ring gets blown off after a few seconds (no timestamp on the video). I love what they're doing, but they're not there yet unfortunately. Bart
As far as the modelling goes. I have built too many models to trust them when the basic science is not understood in detail. It's dead easy to model something that models the past, just put in enough parameters. :-)
On another issue; of those 2500 scientists only 500 actually 'have something to do with climate' so I'm still not impressed. Furthermore, a large part of the IPCC work has to do with collecting climate change data, and not with the causes of that change, so the actual number of scientists thinking quantitatively about that is still lower. All in all science is not settled by quantity and groupthink. Also the politicised nature of the IPCC where its chairman calls Svensmark 'irresponsible' because his ideas don't fit in the consensus is insane, and thoroughly discredits its summary for policymakers.
Anyway, I will read the link you mentioned, if you promise me you'll read the arxiv.org link to Nir Shaviv
Gday mate.
There has been a trend over the last decades of ca. 2%. See 'Long term residual modulation of lower energy galactic cosmic rays' by H. S. Ahluwalia and C. Lopate. Google for 'icrc 2001 Ahluwahlia' and you'll find the conference proceedings.
I don't find realclimate.org very informative, it's more of an activist site. You will not find information that disagrees with Michael Mann there, unless he has managed to really stomp the counter arguments into the ground.
I find the IPCC error bars on the influence of the sun much too small and based mostly on the change in TSI.
I am really skeptical about this whole field of research, which has become hugely religious, and for me the eye opener has been a lecture by this already mentioned Bas van Geel. Later I was told directly by the main climate adviser of the Dutch government (Dr. Lucas Reijnders) that the GCM outputs proved that the CO2 was the cause of the warm period we're currently in. At that point my bullshit detector went into overdrive, and I started looking if there were more scientists that don't agree with this 'the science is settled'. It turns out there are actually quite a few, and I've read some scientific articles, including the one by Nir Shaviv that I linked at.
My conclusion is therefore that it's still pretty much an open question what percentage of the recent warming is CO2 driven. I'm not an expert in this, so I can't say. I'm sure we'll know in a decade or so.
In the mean time it's ofcourse an excellent idea to start living more energy efficient lives, but we don't need to get all panicky, and we really shouldn't begin geo-engineering efforts when we really don't know what we're messing with.
Look here, I'm not saying the planet is not somewhat warmer today than it was a century ago. I'm just saying that I doubt that CO2 is the cause of that because even in these last 100 years there is not a good correlation between CO2 and temperature.
If you're interested in some of the deeper thinkers that think the sun is the more important player in climate, have a look at Nir Shaviv and especially On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
Don't believe me? Here's their link
So don't mind me if I don't take all these "it can't be the sun" arguments very seriously.
I'm a physicist, I know about the laboratory scale effect of CO2. However, what is far from uncertain is how far this effect is actually influencing climate, because of the awfully complicated feedback mechanisms (plant growth, albedo changes, clouds, aerosols,...)
A recent paper by Nir Shaviv estimates that 0.49+-0.12K of the warming of the last century has been caused by changes in TSI together with changes in solar magnetic field that modulate the GCR flux (the link is in one of my previous posts).
What do I care about George Will, he's just a reporter. I'm more interested in the informed knowledge of Bas van Geel for instance, Professor of Paleo-Ecology of the University of Amsterdam, who is also completely unconvinced about CO2 being such an important factor.
Climatologists have indeed discounted the change of TSI as the cause of the warm late 20th century. None of the sceptics deny that. What they point out very clearly from historical records (google for Be-10 treerings) is that there must be a large amplification factor.
All in all, they only proof anyone has offered that it's CO2 that is the main cause of the warm 20th century is the output of global circulation models. I just don't buy that, and there's plenty of observational evidence that points to the lack of importance of CO2, such as the recent fact that the average global temperature was pretty much steady (or slightly dropping) between 1940 and 1975, while the CO2 was rising continuously. Similarly for the last 10 years or so, where the temperature also has not risen while we were pumping out CO2 at an increasing rate.
Nope, the plot you linked to is not what I'm talking about, as you can see from the averaged curve it averages over much shorter periods. I mentioned 30 years (ca. 3 solar cycles) to see some sort of cumulative effect. The correlation is much stronger, and nicely shows the warming trend of the later part of the last century.
It seems the warming has essentially stopped the last 10 years, which is also consistent with a sun that is becoming less active. We'll definitely know in a few years because it looks like the sun is going into a very low activity cycle, and if that's as important as I think it is, we'll start to get more cooling years (like the last one).
What are you doing on a site for nerds? You should know that our friends the Mythbusters have busted this whole sugar in tank myth. This myth probably has the same level of validity as all those hysterical AGW claims.
P.S. Did you all know the sun is going into a magnetically very quiet period? We will know within a few years if the sun is the more important climate driver or CO2. For more information have a look at Watts Up With That.
realclimate.org is run by Michael Mann who created the hockey stick. Try to get some independent confirmation
realclimate.org is run by Michael Mann of hockeystick fame who is so sure that he knows it all that he has to name his website 'realclimate'.
Now it's exactly here where the science is not settled. See for instance this very recent article by Nir Shaviv, where he calculates the effect of the sun on the total ocean heat content. Quote:
Considering the global temperature rise in the 20th century of roughly 0.7K (+- observation errors) it seems that most (if not all) of the temperature change could be explained by the sun. All in all this is still very much active science, only the politics seems to be settled. Also, for all of us who doubt all the global warming CO2 spoonfeeding, that would like do have some DIY experience; do these steps;
Did you know that there were about twice as many sunspots in the last decades of the previous century as in the early 1900s? And three times as many as in 1830?
Bart
P.S. did you know that the Global Circulation Models outputs that are being used to predict the future don't actually have confidence intervals in them? The modellers do a lot of different runs, with different outputs (say between 1.5K and 6K increase in one century) and then confidently claim the 1.5-6K as a confidence interval, as if that means that the future is going to be within that range with that unspecified confidence. Whereas if these models are even 1% off in total albedo, they'll be so wildly wrong it's not funny anymore.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/ has all details, including a polite discussion about what this means.
Sorry but our usual puerile slashdot comments will typically be blackholed on that site.
If your site name itself claims that you own the TRUTH about climate, than you obviously are not part of science.
Try http://sciencebits.com/ for instance for some interesting insights.
I'm a physicist. I happen to doubt some of the claims that AGW proponents think represent the behaviour of the climate.
Why do you claim the right to call me a 'denialist'. I'm not calling you a 'believer' am I?
One of the huge problems with this whole climate change discussion is that it's gone way beyond science, and has become religion!
You want past climate reconstruction using a computer model. For the last 1000 years? I'm pretty sure that with a model with 1000 parameters I can hit every year within 0.01C. Probably only about 20 parameters should be plenty to get within 0.1C or so.
Really. These climate models should be taken with a huge grain of salt! And re-creation of the past should really not be taken as proof of validity!
Bart
For the last 8 years I've pretty much only used Linux, and my experience has been that whenever the machine suddenly becomes consistently slow (not just a few seconds because of updatedb), it's a DNS issue. Maybe you have a primary DNS that times out and then fails over to a second one or so.
That's my rule of thumb, and it has served me well.
Probably the same on Windows.
Bart
that's better than waiting.
Oh... Qt has been out for a long long time.
What a load of bull... And define cups of coffee: the big mugs of strong stuff we drink here in the Netherlands, or the slightly stained warm water of the U.S. or the tarmac residue in Turkey.
Hi
We moved our project from 2.4 to 2.6 during development, because the maximum interrupt latency of 2.6 is so much better. We needed to handle UDP packets within 20 ms. max and occasionally on 2.4 we would have a 60 or more. Going to 2.6 solved our problems immediately, even with early versions.
See this Linux Journal article for more details on our project http://m.linuxjournal.com/article/7190
Bart van Deenen