They used two different measuring systems, and diddled the numbers until the graphs overlapped. They used data from measuring stations that were not properly shielded from mundane human activity (I think one was actually near a pub, in Australia?) and whose data could not be normalized using nearby measuring stations.
The "normalization" process is also suspect in cases where "nearby" can mean hundreds or even thousands on km away.
Carbon good, carbon bad, we don't know. Possibly it's not good,
Dude, would you get over it. Man made global warming is REAL, and this site proves it:
http://surfacestations.org/
At least in the sense that there are little spots all over the globe made warmer by asphalt and air conditioner exhausts.
This site also shows that only about a tenth of the stations in question are well sited. In an urban area you have quite a big of warming due to the Heating part of HVAC, internal combustion engines, etc. Which can affect even a well sited monitoring station. Worldwide a large proportion of monitoring sites are located at airports, which have the same issues as those located in cities, even where the airport is misleadingly classified as "rural".
wow.. you are entering into a debate about global warming and you don't even know what the CRU is?
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
After the leak which showed the CRU was manipulating the data. People started looking into things, turns out that there are only a few data sets and all of them have problems. Including data manipulation, "cherry picking" and even failing to properly site measuring equipment.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
It's technically true since what the "warmists" are doing isn't (and hasn't been for some time) science in the first place. Though claims for "man made warming" could actually be true, for cities and airports... Millions spent to "discover" that the Exhaust Gas Temperature being displayed on the engine monitoring panel of the average jet airliner isn't just there to decorate the cockpit!
Reminds me of the creationists who keep telling us that dinosaur bones don't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.
However creationists arn't given huge amounts of public money to push their claims. They also tend to be less rude to their critics. Other than that there really isn't that much difference between the two groups.
Improving the accuracy of the clocks (by orders of magnitude) has the potential to cut down a few meters to potentially tens of centimeters... You'd need that level of accuracy to land a plane... Planes "flare" during landing (slowing the rate of decent to nearly 0 just as the wheels touch down). Plus or minus even one meter in any direction (up, down, forward, back, side to side) could be catastrophic. So current "autoland" autopilots use radar altitude and ground based ILS (radio based navigation) to gain the necessary precision.
"Full blind autoland" systems have been around since the 1960's An unexpected problem with the first systems is that they were "too accurate", runways wear out quickly if touchdown always happens in the same place.
If GPS accuracy gets good enough to where you don't need those aux systems (or need them as primary at least), complexity of autopilots would drop significantly...
Most landings are performed by pilots. Even in an autoland situation the pilots go through similar procedures to if they were flying the plane. Otherwise things are likely to end up like TK1951.
The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt. The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily.
Or less if more BNP members are like Terence Gavan. Interesting how the media was so quiet about his being jailed over having a collection of bombs and guns. In other words being a terrorist. Indeed the BNP appears to have a fair number of convicted terrorists amongst it's (possibly former) membership. The likes of Robert Cottage, Mark Bulman, Allen Boyce, Joe Owens & Tony Lecomber springing to mind. Yet their website still appears to be up.
As I said, good luck with that. It might be possible for someone with deep pockets and plenty of time to obtain such a judgement,
You don't need sepcially deep pockets to issue a summons. Especially for a "small claim". If PayPal (or whoever) don't respond to the summons within a fairly short period of time they wind up with a judgment against them. If they do reply, but don't show up at the court they are also likely to lose the case.
Companies like EDS, who have consistently failed, are given priority over other companies that have never been allowed to try. There are countless examples where a small business could have delivered a working system for around £1m, but EDS has been awarded £20m and still failed to actually produce anything that works.
Thing is that the bidding process can itself be very expensive. So that £10m of that could equate to EDS' bidding costs, both sucessful and unsuccessful. A small business probably also dosn't know how to play the right political games, including "wineing and dineing" together with paying "backhanders", either.
The worst problem with the F-35 is that it's overkill for most of its intended uses (stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists), while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected).
It's rather a big hole in the concept of "stealth" when it can be defeated by 50 year old technology. Wonder how well it would do against "Chain Home":)
If you were talking about the NOAA, or NASA GISS, or some other organization involved in the actual performance of the scientific method...
You'd expect these kind of people to do things like check that monitoring stations are correctly sited. But the only such checking appears to be being carried out by volunteers at surfacestations.org. With their finding only 10% of such stations are as good as they should be.
So good luck if you live in another country and have any complaint. Your problem will at best make the bottom of someone's in-tray, and at worst the bottom of a wastepaper bin.
On the other hand this means that you can probably get a court judgement against them quite easily. So as long as they have assets in your country you get you money back.
The Government has to step up and declare Paypal a bank. Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does) - only the government can do that if you are in breach of laws.
In which case goverments will pass laws allowing them to freeze assets of people they don't like on a whim. e.g. by calling them "terrorists". It's not like Wikileaks hasn't caught several governments with their "pants down".
This has been going on for many years, with many different groups. Until people stop using Paypal, or some sort of oversight or audit is performed, it will continue to happen. Mayhap Wikileaks should try and dig up information on Paypal.
Since this is the second time that this has happened to them why did they still have assets for Paypal to freeze.
That is the main problem with closed source software; in the event of a security hole, you as a customer / company are left to the mercy / arrogance of your software vendor to patch the flaw.
Or even admit that there actually is a flaw. Microsoft were told about this months ago and there's no reason to believe that the first person to find a flaw with be a "white hat".
It is only a matter of time before governments will start figuring out these things. Those vehicles that cannot be remotely disabled via radio packet or EMP gun, the legislature can pass a statute or the governor may order the commissioner of the motor vehicle department to no longer issue registrations or renewals under the rubric of carbon control.
Or maybe they get confiscated and converted into police cars...
Better than the alternative, which is to potentially leave software running with a still vulnerable browser, and a user with a false sense of security because they 'just installed the patch.'
The other alternative is to put up a message saying "These applications/services/etc need to be restarted".
Allowing libraries to be modified on disk while in use is a solution to the upgrade problem which is simple, elegant, and terribly, terribly wrong.
If the OS is sufficently "clever" the old version of the library need only exist until the last thing executing it's code stops doing so.
MS sat on the bugs for months and only released a patch after public disclosure by Google. How much longer would have they sat on them if it wasn't for the bad PR.
Was it Google or was it several countries, including to large EU members, putting out the message to avoid using the software. AFAIK national governments doing this kind of thing hasn't happened before.
But when Google announces that IE was to blame in a large number of attacks, both France and Germany advises their citizens not to use IE for a while, MS better patch it sooner than later.
IIRC Australia also put out similar advice. Though it's probably bigger for France and Germany to agree:)
Windows is targeted as it is the #1 Home and Business OS, and as most people are clueless about how the technology actually works (running with admin privileges, surfing dodgy sites, falling for phishing scams, opening spam emails).
A factor with the "running with admin privileges" is badly written software where the supported method is to have the user, rather than the program (or even part of the program) only having elevated privileges or change the permissions on whatever the program actually needs access to. Another thing Windows lacks is the concept of execute permissions and/or file systems which cannot contain executables. Even though parts of it are apparently derived from VAX/VMS which does have such permissions. No doubt it is possible to emulate "setuid", "sudo", "noexec", etc in Windows. If you fully understand how to actually use it's complex security model. Just that plenty of Windows developers don't appear to even understand the concept of having a security model in the first place. Whereas with just about any other multi-user OS such understanding tends to be required for anything other than fairly simple software.
Also that's a totally different scenario. High altitudes like that without oxygen while mountain climbing are achievable only by letting the body acclimatize for several weeks at progressively higher altitudes during the climb.
You take anyone at sea level and put them immediately at 9km up without oxygen, they will pass out within minutes.
Much the same is likely to happen even starting at about 2.5km. (The typically "cabin altitude" of an airliner.)
The other factor is that the typical propeller does become less efficient as the air gets thinner, so there is still a ceiling. Jets (turbofans) have less of an issue with this.
The most obvious difference is that the blades of the fan on a turbofan cannot change their pitch, whereas this is possible with a prop.From a quick Google, It appears that above Flight Level 240 (24000) the majority of the thrust of a turbofan comes from the jet exhaust, while at sea level most of it comes from the fan.
At sea level you need more thrust to maintain speed, since the denser the air the higher the drag. The added complications are that the density of air also affects lift, such that the higher you are the faster you need to fly to generate sufficent lift. Fly too high and you will encounter what pilots call "coffin corner", since you'd need to fly faster than Vne in order to generate enough lift. The other issue is that internal combustion engines can become limited by the amount of available oxygen. Whereas an electric motor can deliver the same amount of power at any altitude. Typically this is not an issue since a planes engines will provide sufficent thrust for it's cruise altitude. Only if an engine fails the remaining engine(s) remaining engines are unlikely to be able to provide sufficent thrust, since jet engines typically have a "relight ceiling" and the rules for a twin are "land at nearest suitable airport in the case of an engine failure" it's likely to be necessary to descend anyway.
I'd like to see a study done on books, music, movies, etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release. My guess is that 95% (if not more) of the money is made in the first 5 years.
If not considerably less. There's also the complication of staggered releases. If a hardback should be considered the same as a paperback. If a film print should be considered the same as a DVD. Even if a rental DV should be considered the same as a for sale DVD.
After that, money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds.
Assuming it is even still "in print".
Yes, some works (e.g. the original Star Wars movies) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released, but I'm betting those are few and far between.
There's also a certain irony in that some of the most sucessful works nearly didn't get published.
We definitely shouldn't shape copyright law to protect 2% of works which are still making money thus locking the 98% of works which aren't from going into the public domain.
The former may not even be a high as 2%. There also don't appear to be many examples of works which made little or no money for decades then suddenly became popular.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is ludicrous in the context of CO2, since we can measure isotopic ratio changes (indicating the change in old carbon versus fresh carbon)
You can get "new" carbon either from meteorites or from neutron irradiation of nitrogen. None of these processes are affected by human activities.
They used two different measuring systems, and diddled the numbers until the graphs overlapped. They used data from measuring stations that were not properly shielded from mundane human activity (I think one was actually near a pub, in Australia?) and whose data could not be normalized using nearby measuring stations.
The "normalization" process is also suspect in cases where "nearby" can mean hundreds or even thousands on km away.
Carbon good, carbon bad, we don't know. Possibly it's not good,
Or it's possibly good, for agriculture.
Dude, would you get over it. Man made global warming is REAL, and this site proves it:
http://surfacestations.org/
At least in the sense that there are little spots all over the globe made warmer by asphalt and air conditioner exhausts.
This site also shows that only about a tenth of the stations in question are well sited.
In an urban area you have quite a big of warming due to the Heating part of HVAC, internal combustion engines, etc. Which can affect even a well sited monitoring station.
Worldwide a large proportion of monitoring sites are located at airports, which have the same issues as those located in cities, even where the airport is misleadingly classified as "rural".
wow.. you are entering into a debate about global warming and you don't even know what the CRU is?
well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
After the leak which showed the CRU was manipulating the data. People started looking into things, turns out that there are only a few data sets and all of them have problems. Including data manipulation, "cherry picking" and even failing to properly site measuring equipment.
The claim was they would melt in 2305 which got misquoted in the report. Peer review missed it. There's nothing scientific about a typo.
Did the typo happen before or after this "peer review"?
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the warmists use the "does not invalidate the science" line, I'd be retired to a nice, warm climate myself. Like maybe Costa Rica. Considering how many of these studies have turned out to be flawed, just would it take to "invalidate the science"?
It's technically true since what the "warmists" are doing isn't (and hasn't been for some time) science in the first place.
Though claims for "man made warming" could actually be true, for cities and airports... Millions spent to "discover" that the Exhaust Gas Temperature being displayed on the engine monitoring panel of the average jet airliner isn't just there to decorate the cockpit!
Reminds me of the creationists who keep telling us that dinosaur bones don't prove the earth isn't 6000 years old.
However creationists arn't given huge amounts of public money to push their claims. They also tend to be less rude to their critics. Other than that there really isn't that much difference between the two groups.
Improving the accuracy of the clocks (by orders of magnitude) has the potential to cut down a few meters to potentially tens of centimeters... You'd need that level of accuracy to land a plane... Planes "flare" during landing (slowing the rate of decent to nearly 0 just as the wheels touch down). Plus or minus even one meter in any direction (up, down, forward, back, side to side) could be catastrophic. So current "autoland" autopilots use radar altitude and ground based ILS (radio based navigation) to gain the necessary precision.
"Full blind autoland" systems have been around since the 1960's An unexpected problem with the first systems is that they were "too accurate", runways wear out quickly if touchdown always happens in the same place.
If GPS accuracy gets good enough to where you don't need those aux systems (or need them as primary at least), complexity of autopilots would drop significantly...
Most landings are performed by pilots. Even in an autoland situation the pilots go through similar procedures to if they were flying the plane. Otherwise things are likely to end up like TK1951.
The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt. The British government has two choices: either solve it now by harshly cutting out any part of the Muslim population that looks even remotely likely it sympathizes with Islamists, or face the prospect that in 20 years as demographics shift, a group like the BNP will stage a coup and take matters into its own hands militarily.
Or less if more BNP members are like Terence Gavan. Interesting how the media was so quiet about his being jailed over having a collection of bombs and guns. In other words being a terrorist. Indeed the BNP appears to have a fair number of convicted terrorists amongst it's (possibly former) membership. The likes of Robert Cottage, Mark Bulman, Allen Boyce, Joe Owens & Tony Lecomber springing to mind.
Yet their website still appears to be up.
As I said, good luck with that. It might be possible for someone with deep pockets and plenty of time to obtain such a judgement,
You don't need sepcially deep pockets to issue a summons. Especially for a "small claim". If PayPal (or whoever) don't respond to the summons within a fairly short period of time they wind up with a judgment against them. If they do reply, but don't show up at the court they are also likely to lose the case.
Companies like EDS, who have consistently failed, are given priority over other companies that have never been allowed to try. There are countless examples where a small business could have delivered a working system for around £1m, but EDS has been awarded £20m and still failed to actually produce anything that works.
Thing is that the bidding process can itself be very expensive. So that £10m of that could equate to EDS' bidding costs, both sucessful and unsuccessful. A small business probably also dosn't know how to play the right political games, including "wineing and dineing" together with paying "backhanders", either.
The worst problem with the F-35 is that it's overkill for most of its intended uses (stealth is useless for bombing third-world dictators and terrorists), while it's also unlikely to survive against current or future SAM systems (60's era Soviet VHF radars can easily detect stealth fighters and the F-35 lacks the speed or maneuverability to survive once detected).
:)
It's rather a big hole in the concept of "stealth" when it can be defeated by 50 year old technology. Wonder how well it would do against "Chain Home"
If you were talking about the NOAA, or NASA GISS, or some other organization involved in the actual performance of the scientific method...
You'd expect these kind of people to do things like check that monitoring stations are correctly sited. But the only such checking appears to be being carried out by volunteers at surfacestations.org. With their finding only 10% of such stations are as good as they should be.
So good luck if you live in another country and have any complaint. Your problem will at best make the bottom of someone's in-tray, and at worst the bottom of a wastepaper bin.
On the other hand this means that you can probably get a court judgement against them quite easily. So as long as they have assets in your country you get you money back.
The Government has to step up and declare Paypal a bank. Banks can't take or freeze your money simply because they don't like what you do (which Paypal often does) - only the government can do that if you are in breach of laws.
In which case goverments will pass laws allowing them to freeze assets of people they don't like on a whim. e.g. by calling them "terrorists". It's not like Wikileaks hasn't caught several governments with their "pants down".
This has been going on for many years, with many different groups. Until people stop using Paypal, or some sort of oversight or audit is performed, it will continue to happen. Mayhap Wikileaks should try and dig up information on Paypal.
Since this is the second time that this has happened to them why did they still have assets for Paypal to freeze.
That is the main problem with closed source software; in the event of a security hole, you as a customer / company are left to the mercy / arrogance of your software vendor to patch the flaw.
Or even admit that there actually is a flaw. Microsoft were told about this months ago and there's no reason to believe that the first person to find a flaw with be a "white hat".
It is only a matter of time before governments will start figuring out these things. Those vehicles that cannot be remotely disabled via radio packet or EMP gun, the legislature can pass a statute or the governor may order the commissioner of the motor vehicle department to no longer issue registrations or renewals under the rubric of carbon control.
Or maybe they get confiscated and converted into police cars...
Better than the alternative, which is to potentially leave software running with a still vulnerable browser, and a user with a false sense of security because they 'just installed the patch.'
The other alternative is to put up a message saying "These applications/services/etc need to be restarted".
Allowing libraries to be modified on disk while in use is a solution to the upgrade problem which is simple, elegant, and terribly, terribly wrong.
If the OS is sufficently "clever" the old version of the library need only exist until the last thing executing it's code stops doing so.
MS sat on the bugs for months and only released a patch after public disclosure by Google. How much longer would have they sat on them if it wasn't for the bad PR.
Was it Google or was it several countries, including to large EU members, putting out the message to avoid using the software. AFAIK national governments doing this kind of thing hasn't happened before.
But when Google announces that IE was to blame in a large number of attacks, both France and Germany advises their citizens not to use IE for a while, MS better patch it sooner than later.
:)
IIRC Australia also put out similar advice. Though it's probably bigger for France and Germany to agree
Windows is targeted as it is the #1 Home and Business OS, and as most people are clueless about how the technology actually works (running with admin privileges, surfing dodgy sites, falling for phishing scams, opening spam emails).
A factor with the "running with admin privileges" is badly written software where the supported method is to have the user, rather than the program (or even part of the program) only having elevated privileges or change the permissions on whatever the program actually needs access to. Another thing Windows lacks is the concept of execute permissions and/or file systems which cannot contain executables. Even though parts of it are apparently derived from VAX/VMS which does have such permissions.
No doubt it is possible to emulate "setuid", "sudo", "noexec", etc in Windows. If you fully understand how to actually use it's complex security model. Just that plenty of Windows developers don't appear to even understand the concept of having a security model in the first place. Whereas with just about any other multi-user OS such understanding tends to be required for anything other than fairly simple software.
Electric motor efficiency is about three times higher than combustion engine efficiency.
:)
Assuming you ignore the efficency of generating the power and getting it into a battery
Also that's a totally different scenario. High altitudes like that without oxygen while mountain climbing are achievable only by letting the body acclimatize for several weeks at progressively higher altitudes during the climb.
You take anyone at sea level and put them immediately at 9km up without oxygen, they will pass out within minutes.
Much the same is likely to happen even starting at about 2.5km. (The typically "cabin altitude" of an airliner.)
The other factor is that the typical propeller does become less efficient as the air gets thinner, so there is still a ceiling. Jets (turbofans) have less of an issue with this.
The most obvious difference is that the blades of the fan on a turbofan cannot change their pitch, whereas this is possible with a prop.From a quick Google, It appears that above Flight Level 240 (24000) the majority of the thrust of a turbofan comes from the jet exhaust, while at sea level most of it comes from the fan.
At sea level you need more thrust to maintain speed, since the denser the air the higher the drag. The added complications are that the density of air also affects lift, such that the higher you are the faster you need to fly to generate sufficent lift. Fly too high and you will encounter what pilots call "coffin corner", since you'd need to fly faster than Vne in order to generate enough lift.
The other issue is that internal combustion engines can become limited by the amount of available oxygen. Whereas an electric motor can deliver the same amount of power at any altitude. Typically this is not an issue since a planes engines will provide sufficent thrust for it's cruise altitude. Only if an engine fails the remaining engine(s) remaining engines are unlikely to be able to provide sufficent thrust, since jet engines typically have a "relight ceiling" and the rules for a twin are "land at nearest suitable airport in the case of an engine failure" it's likely to be necessary to descend anyway.
I'd like to see a study done on books, music, movies, etc that graphs out how much money they make each year after their release. My guess is that 95% (if not more) of the money is made in the first 5 years.
If not considerably less. There's also the complication of staggered releases. If a hardback should be considered the same as a paperback. If a film print should be considered the same as a DVD. Even if a rental DV should be considered the same as a for sale DVD.
After that, money made on most works likely plummets each year until it brings in a bare trickle of funds.
Assuming it is even still "in print".
Yes, some works (e.g. the original Star Wars movies) continue to make tons of cash decades after they were released, but I'm betting those are few and far between.
There's also a certain irony in that some of the most sucessful works nearly didn't get published.
We definitely shouldn't shape copyright law to protect 2% of works which are still making money thus locking the 98% of works which aren't from going into the public domain.
The former may not even be a high as 2%. There also don't appear to be many examples of works which made little or no money for decades then suddenly became popular.