Per passenger mile isn't really fair either. Every few years, I fly a few thousand miles for vacation. If flying was not an option, I'd never consider driving a few thousand miles. Instead, I'd find a closer destination.
Volcanoes produce less than 1% of the net CO2 emissions. Breathing produces no net CO2, since the carbon was taken out of the atmosphere in the last couple of years.
I'm not saying global warming isn't a thing...just curious about why nobody ever addresses the data.
Here's some data for you:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
It's a graph of the global temperature in red, and the trend based on data up till 1997. Now, take a ruler or a piece of paper, put it on your monitor, and extend the trend line until 2014. Would you say the upwards trend has been broken ?
Nothing in the entire 'climategate' set of e-mail points to fudging the temperature records. Which is quite telling, actually. You'd expect that scientists that were really fudging the data would talk to each other about it.
Too short for what, exactly ? It's long enough to determine that the rise in temperature is not due to random fluctuations (i.e. weather). What exactly would we learn from looking at a longer time period ?
By the way, we do have proxy data going back further, if you're interested in seeing the data in historical perspective. So, now what ?
Do you honestly think the scientists are going to give you a signed confession reading "Yes, we mislead you!" or something?
No, I expect you to come up with some proof. That means you do your own research, and when you get different results, then you publish them. That's how science is done.
The energy used in manufacturing needs to be paid, right ? So, yes, ROI does tell you that it takes less energy to make them than they provide. As far as not counting the pollutants, you may have a point, but that is equally well applied to other sources of energy.
It doesn't make sense to compare records from 55 million years ago with this century, unless you also keep in mind the difference in greenhouse gases, albedo, solar radiation, and whatever other influences there are. Also, as far as impact on modern societies, the recent temperature changes are much more relevant to us, than whatever happened millions or billions of years ago. We now have plenty of population centers near the coast, for example.
No, "fudging" means to adjust the data with intent to mislead. In this case, the data is adjusted to correct for errors.
If you want to accuse the scientists with intent to mislead you need to substantiate your accusations with some proof.
Most likely some local scale that was later converted to a standard scale. Since we're not dealing with absolute temperatures, but with temperature anomalies, it's fairly simple to take two overlapping temperature measurements, and figure out how to correct one of them to agree with the other during the period of overlap. Apply the same correction to the period of non-overlap, and you have your answer.
Despite you getting sick at hearing "denier, denier", the fact remains that a significant number of the public and in politics deny there's a problem in the first place.
How can you expect people to agree on a solution when we can't agree on the problem ?
Of course, if you add enough cruft, you can slow anything down to a crawl.
Second, even if it were true, it would be a lot less power efficient. If you can parallelise your workload, then two 1.5GHz cores will use less power than one 3GHz one
You need a number of bit flips to solve a problem. Energy is related to the number of bits flipped. If you use twice the bits at half the speed, the energy requirements will be the same. By splitting the workload over multiple cores you have more overhead, so more energy is required.
Slashdot Mirror
These numbers are per passenger.
Per passenger mile isn't really fair either. Every few years, I fly a few thousand miles for vacation. If flying was not an option, I'd never consider driving a few thousand miles. Instead, I'd find a closer destination.
Volcanoes produce less than 1% of the net CO2 emissions. Breathing produces no net CO2, since the carbon was taken out of the atmosphere in the last couple of years.
According to the infographic in the article, 20 people running their refrigerators for a year produces more CO2 than a return flight.
I'm not saying global warming isn't a thing...just curious about why nobody ever addresses the data.
Here's some data for you: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... It's a graph of the global temperature in red, and the trend based on data up till 1997. Now, take a ruler or a piece of paper, put it on your monitor, and extend the trend line until 2014. Would you say the upwards trend has been broken ?
And finally you've got hipsters, who'll do anything just because other hipsters are doing it
fixed that for you.
I must admit that I read his obituary with great glee.
I trust it was in focus ?
Go to the drug store and get some $2.50 standard set in the minimum strength so that you can read the monitors. Try them out.
Objective truth finding about the temperature and the cause is not "activist". Besides, nice straw man.
Nothing in the entire 'climategate' set of e-mail points to fudging the temperature records. Which is quite telling, actually. You'd expect that scientists that were really fudging the data would talk to each other about it.
Because 135 is too short a time frame.
Too short for what, exactly ? It's long enough to determine that the rise in temperature is not due to random fluctuations (i.e. weather). What exactly would we learn from looking at a longer time period ? By the way, we do have proxy data going back further, if you're interested in seeing the data in historical perspective. So, now what ?
Do you honestly think the scientists are going to give you a signed confession reading "Yes, we mislead you!" or something?
No, I expect you to come up with some proof. That means you do your own research, and when you get different results, then you publish them. That's how science is done.
I didn't assert, I made a wild ass guess.
Aluminium refining is a fairly brute force process. Just run a electrical current through some molten salts.
Using the last 135 years as a comparison point is more that silly - it's being dishonest. (ie lying to people to make a point).
Why is that silly or dishonest ? What exactly is the "lie" here ?
The energy used in manufacturing needs to be paid, right ? So, yes, ROI does tell you that it takes less energy to make them than they provide. As far as not counting the pollutants, you may have a point, but that is equally well applied to other sources of energy.
Of course I can be wrong. So, please don't hesitate to provide corrections.
It doesn't make sense to compare records from 55 million years ago with this century, unless you also keep in mind the difference in greenhouse gases, albedo, solar radiation, and whatever other influences there are. Also, as far as impact on modern societies, the recent temperature changes are much more relevant to us, than whatever happened millions or billions of years ago. We now have plenty of population centers near the coast, for example.
No, "fudging" means to adjust the data with intent to mislead. In this case, the data is adjusted to correct for errors. If you want to accuse the scientists with intent to mislead you need to substantiate your accusations with some proof.
but the process of creating solar panels is ridiculously dirty and the panels themselves aren't exactly bio-degradable or easy to recycle.
[citation required]
Most likely some local scale that was later converted to a standard scale. Since we're not dealing with absolute temperatures, but with temperature anomalies, it's fairly simple to take two overlapping temperature measurements, and figure out how to correct one of them to agree with the other during the period of overlap. Apply the same correction to the period of non-overlap, and you have your answer.
Despite you getting sick at hearing "denier, denier", the fact remains that a significant number of the public and in politics deny there's a problem in the first place. How can you expect people to agree on a solution when we can't agree on the problem ?
The errors bars do get bigger the further back we go, but they are small enough to make that conclusion.
This is a legitimate question
Since the answer is a trivial google search away, I doubt that. I found this in 5 seconds: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
trust me on this
Of course, if you add enough cruft, you can slow anything down to a crawl.
Second, even if it were true, it would be a lot less power efficient. If you can parallelise your workload, then two 1.5GHz cores will use less power than one 3GHz one
You need a number of bit flips to solve a problem. Energy is related to the number of bits flipped. If you use twice the bits at half the speed, the energy requirements will be the same. By splitting the workload over multiple cores you have more overhead, so more energy is required.