China has stealth aircraft and bombers, a more prolific nuclear program than the United States, several centers with very reliable high speed internet that is better than most Americans (Beijing and Shanghai in particular), and spends the second most money on military in the world, albeit badly dwarfed by the United States (albeit most work is 1/3 to 1/4 the cost). If they aren't a super power, then Russia isn't, either.
Although I'm quite wary of the Chinese, they don't have "stealth aircraft and bombers". They have a couple of prototype fighters, and nothing even close to mass production. As far as I'm aware they have no modern bomber program, please provide a link if you know of one.
I've read quite a bit about it, and given China's lack of ability to project force around the world, it is certainly not a "military superpower" in the sense of the US or the old Soviet Union. And no, Russia isn't a "superpower" either. The only thing that makes it stand out from the pack at all is its large legacy arsenal of nuclear weapons.
That said, China is very secretive about it's nuclear program, and we don't know how many weapons it has. That is disturbing.
The use of nuclear weapons will never make sense. If one side uses them than the other side would do nothing but spread the misery. Neither side would win as the only way to win is not to play.
That only holds true as long as there are sufficient numbers which also survive the initial attack. A "limited" exchange involving a few hundred weapons would by no means "destroy the world". That many were detonated during above-ground testing between 1945 and the early 60's.
Nuclear weapons have probably prevented more human death than any other single invention. Without them I'm quite sure we'd have had another world war by now.
I would think we already have plenty of non nuclear weapons to sufficiently retaliate against any other country in the world.
If an adversary with a superior nuclear force pulled off a surprise attack, most of our conventional forces would be destroyed in short order. There would be little if any supply line for things like fuel. Finally, it is hard to fight when you're completely demoralized, knowing that your homeland is in ruins.
Right now such a scenario is unlikely, since there is no other military capable of projecting force anywhere with anywhere near the capability of the US. Things change though, and complacency can be deadly.
Exactly. And in the interests of the economy, we shouldn't build any more nuclear weapons until we've used the ones we've got.
That'd be fine, except nuclear warheads don't have an indefinite shelf life. Our nuclear arsenal is in real need of modernization, not the least of which involves using modern electronics to make them safer.
At the moment, the US is the only nuclear power unable to produce new weapons grade plutonium - and that's a problem.
Ok, and what happens when the enemy launches a bunch of fighter jets to take out all your drones, which are now flying autonomously and just looking for a target, because communications and GPS are blocked? Your drones are nothing more than cruise missiles at this point.
Nope, not correct. Autonomous fighters would have to be able to make "human-like" decisions about the threat environment, friend versus foe, etc. The AI for that isn't all that hard, also consider that BVR IFF is already handled by electronics. Our 50+ mile range missiles are useless if we can't fire them BVR.
With just a few cameras, one could provide spherical coverage around a pilotless F-35, not to mention the radar, FLIR, and missile detection sensors. Unlike a human pilot, the AI would essentially continuously monitor its entire environment, probably several times a second.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just launch cruise missiles?
No. An excellent example of the cruise-missile replacement is the current generation Navy X-47B. It's an entirely autonomous bomber, which will take off and land from aircraft carriers. It's far cheaper than using cruise missiles, as the only expense is ordinance and fuel instead of a $1 million missile.
The whole point of drones is that you have remote human pilots who can respond to changing mission needs, rather than a fire-and-forget long-range missile, I would assume. If you block communications (and some navigation), you lose that advantage entirely, so there's little point in even having the drones to begin with.
There are lots of potential mission scenarios. One would be to launch entirely autonomous fighter missions for things like CAP. Another would be to launch air-to-ground missions where almost all the work is done by the drone, but a channel is left open specifically to approve strikes (man in the loop). Note that with satcom the plane can communicate stealthily (directional up to the satellite, everything in a large footprint gets the return signal). Another possibility would be to have a control aircraft nearby, and use a secure, short-range comm channel.
For air-to-air engagements, a high level of autonomy is important, as latency introduced by satellite comms is unacceptable.
iPad looks like a good reader, film viewer and game console, but a dead-end for anyone who wants to write, program or get real work done.
For the main iPad use cases, you missed "web browser" and "email reader".
The addition of a Bluetooth keyboard (which are getting better and better) moves it squarely into the sweet spot for writing.
For "programming and real work" you can use the keyboard plus some of the increasingly excellent remoting software. While it's a compromise (so is a laptop for that matter) you can use the full power of a beefy desktop or server. With a decent network connection it works well.
I like laptops as well, but the point is that even the iPad is becoming more and more viable as a laptop replacement for many people.
His point has some validity in that Java interest is being diluted by newer (and many think improved) languages running on the JVM. In addition to the ones already mentioned, there are Clojure and Gosu as well, plus probably more I'm forgetting. Scala is the pick of the bunch, IMO.
The other thing to keep in mind, is that the Tiobe index is based on web searches. So, it's really a combination of which language is popular, multiplied by its confusion factor. If C is used half as much, but is three times as confusing, it will score higher...;-)
The fact that many corporations use Java for some in-house monstrosity and hire people left and right does say nothing about UX experience of said programs. These programs are forced on workers. They can't decide on their own.
Yeah, unsuccessful "in-house monstrosities" like Twitter. Twitter was able to achieve performance using Scala+JVM that just wasn't possible using Ruby. FourSquare and LinkedIn are also using Scala.
We'll see how things go on the desktop going forward... There are some best of class JVM based programs like Eclipse and Azureus. Let's not forget Minecraft either...
Eclipse is just as good as Visual Studio, if not better with its rich ecosystem of plugins. It's telling that the various attempts at "native" Java have failed to perform as well as the Sun/Oracle JVM. There's also a reason that Java is now the #1 commercial language, having handily beat C++ and Pascal in the marketplace.
There's a niche for a new great system programming language, because C++ isn't it. As I said before, I'd like to see Scala running on the LLVM.
Although Java has it's issues, it also has some serious upside. Scala and the various other alternative languages on the JVM are the most interesting recent developments in programming technology, IMO.
Granted, I'd like to see Scala on top of the LLVM with optional manual memory management and a native architecture extension system...but you have to start somewhere.
Nuclear will be a necessary evil for the next 50-100 years.
What's "evil" about clean, safe, cheap power?
My beef is when they argue that nuclear is 'safer' than coal. Not true in any sense unless you exclude what 'could' happen.
It's true in the very real sense that coal causes thousands of deaths worldwide every year, while nuclear doesn't. What's the horrible death toll from Fukushima again?
Here's an article compariing various energy source's mortality rates.
Here's another touting nuclear as much safer, pointing out that coal pollution claims over 13,000 lives a year just in the US.
The tiger by the tail situation is that we need to get off fossil fuels basically yesterday, and the only available option for grid scale right now is nuclear. But we need to be investing in renewable now at the same time and usually the argument is that nuclear is the 'answer' and it isn't.
Nuclear is a fine answer, especially the next-gen and thorium based plants. I'm all for end-user solar as it becomes more cost-effective, but wind power is a loser that needs go away ASAP.
We can all hope that LENR pans out - that will mean colonization of the solar system, and flying cars for all!;-)
1. The quoted efficiency (7.5%) seems to be quite low - aren't other more traditional cells at 20% or more? I don't see any indication that these cells cost half or less than traditional solar cells which would make up for the efficiency losses.
These obviously don't use much material, and the stated materials are silicon and nickel which are both very abundant. As long as the thin film cell material is also silicon, these should be very cheap to manufacture especially in quantity. These might be a great solution for the ever-elusive "solar roof tile". Even assuming no improvement in efficiency, a 75' by 25' roof installation could generate ~50 KWh of electricity per day under average conditions. That could help quite a bit with the electric bill, especially for AC during summer in hot climates.
2. There doesn't see to be any method of passing current from cells that are butted up or overlapping each other which means that there must be wires running to each cell. This would mean that the process of putting on different surfaces is not as simple as implied in the article summaries.
For the solar roof tile application, the conductors would be built into the tiles. Wires are not exactly a show-stopper in terms of technology.;-)
The temps to which I'm referring are the running average, which doesn't vary rapidly on a scale of months. You bring nothing of substance to the conversation, and in fact automatically lose the debate by ad hominem.
It's worth noting that you have no worthwhile thoughts regarding the reality we face over the next few decades.
As I said, time will tell. At this moment things aren't looking like they'll conform to your belief system.;-)
Over the full 20 years dummy. 20 years is short, 10 years is stupid.
You're claiming that ten years worth of sea level data can't show a trend? You're the stupid one.
Whether the trend will continue for the next 10 or more years is certainly a question, but no one can say for sure at the moment.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998.
You just don't learn, do you? 1998 was a local maxima, so in 2009, you thought could say "the last 10 years data shows cooling." But now of course you can't say that, because the last 10 years data doesn't start on a local maxima. The last 10 years data doesn't show cooling at all, but rising.*
Actually, you're wrong again. What a surprise.
If you look at the UAH satellite temperature data, the running average in 2002 was at 0.2 C above the baseline. As of Oct. 2012, it is running about 0.12 C above the baseline. No statistically significant warming - in fact there's been cooling. (Also FYI, in 1998 the running average hit 0.4 C above the baseline.)
So now you want to cherry pick the last 12/13 years, again starting with the local maxima of 1998. Which shows you blatantly to be cherry picking. 12/13 years? What kind of period is that to choose?
Even NOAA admits that a 15 year pause in warming represents major problems for the climate modelers:
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
We are right at the threshold of such a fifteen year period now. As I pointed out previously, the Sun is unlikely to play along with the climate alarmists. It will certainly be devastating to them if we get any kind of cooling trend over the next 20-40 years, as I expect we will.
You're a cherry picking fraud and you just helped me to made it obvious to everyone. Thanks for playing.
(*Of course no one with shred of integrity would be trying to use 10 years, when for climate trends you need more like 30 years to start to lose the year to year noise. Hence my point about your stupid splitting of a 20 year graph of ocean levels into 2 10 year trends.)
It's interesting how the warmist alarmists are descending to name calling. It's a sign of desperation.
The beauty of this situation is we'll know soon enough who was right...just a few more years to go. Be patient, and prepared to eat a huge helping of crow.
In the meantime, let's reflect on the actual realities of CO2 concentration. What do you think the peak value will be? It seems to me that it's virtually impossible to get to the point where humanity as a whole is carbon-neutral before 2050, and even that date is very unlikely. China is currently building two large coal electric plants every week. My guess for peak CO2 concentration is between 500-600 PPM, up from the current ~400 PPM. So, you'd better hope I'm right and you're wrong.
Regardless of my thinking on the matter, I'm willing to meet you alarmists halfway. I would welcome a push for a massive buildout of next-generation nuclear for a number of reasons. That, combined with next-generation solar, could make a major difference in CO2 concentration going forward. It seems clear we're going to need a lot of high-density energy generation for the geoengineering necessary if AGW alarmism is in fact correct.
If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002.
No, he'll see a denialist bufoon trying to split a 20 year graph of noisy data into two distinct sections. He won't see the scientist that actually created that data doing something so dumb.
First of all, genius, the scientists collecting that data apply a linear regression right there on the chart, to the "noisy data". If you do the same thing to the most recent ten years worth (I have) you'll see that there's a significant decrease in the trend. That is all perfectly legitimate analysis.
I'm a realist, and believe in emperical verification of theory. So far the warmist alarmist predictions have been quite poor. They are adept at constant revisionism though.
You tried exactly the same back in 2009, to claim that global warming had stopped in 1998. However, 3 years more data of climing temperatures showed that you were exactly the idiot people said you were. Trying to make patterns out of short term noise.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998. You should know your subject matter better - that will prevent you from making a fool of yourself.
According to three independent studies of the Sun's interior, visible surface and corona, solar cycle 25 will have significantly reduced activity, or may not even appear at all.
We're currently approaching the weak maximum of Cycle 24, so we're most likely looking at a minimum of twenty years of low solar activity - similar to that during the Little Ice Age. That will be a great empirical test of the dominance of CO2 concentration as a warming influence.
"Cherry picking" doesn't involve simply looking at the most recent ten years. There is a clear drop in the average rate of sea level increase. Again, that is in direct conflict with the idea that the current high CO2 concentration is driving temperatures inexorably upwards.
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
BS. If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002. This is entirely inconsistent with a) the claim being made by these researchers and b) the idea that the current high levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing unusual warming, swamping natural variability.
The ocean heat sink is supposed to receive something like 80% of the AGW related heat increase, causing thermal expansion as you state.
"Forget the experimental evidence - it's ruining our beautiful theory!"
Slashdot Mirror
China has stealth aircraft and bombers, a more prolific nuclear program than the United States, several centers with very reliable high speed internet that is better than most Americans (Beijing and Shanghai in particular), and spends the second most money on military in the world, albeit badly dwarfed by the United States (albeit most work is 1/3 to 1/4 the cost). If they aren't a super power, then Russia isn't, either.
Although I'm quite wary of the Chinese, they don't have "stealth aircraft and bombers". They have a couple of prototype fighters, and nothing even close to mass production. As far as I'm aware they have no modern bomber program, please provide a link if you know of one.
I've read quite a bit about it, and given China's lack of ability to project force around the world, it is certainly not a "military superpower" in the sense of the US or the old Soviet Union. And no, Russia isn't a "superpower" either. The only thing that makes it stand out from the pack at all is its large legacy arsenal of nuclear weapons.
That said, China is very secretive about it's nuclear program, and we don't know how many weapons it has. That is disturbing.
The use of nuclear weapons will never make sense. If one side uses them than the other side would do nothing but spread the misery. Neither side would win as the only way to win is not to play.
That only holds true as long as there are sufficient numbers which also survive the initial attack. A "limited" exchange involving a few hundred weapons would by no means "destroy the world". That many were detonated during above-ground testing between 1945 and the early 60's.
Nuclear weapons have probably prevented more human death than any other single invention. Without them I'm quite sure we'd have had another world war by now.
I would think we already have plenty of non nuclear weapons to sufficiently retaliate against any other country in the world.
If an adversary with a superior nuclear force pulled off a surprise attack, most of our conventional forces would be destroyed in short order. There would be little if any supply line for things like fuel. Finally, it is hard to fight when you're completely demoralized, knowing that your homeland is in ruins.
Right now such a scenario is unlikely, since there is no other military capable of projecting force anywhere with anywhere near the capability of the US. Things change though, and complacency can be deadly.
Exactly. And in the interests of the economy, we shouldn't build any more nuclear weapons until we've used the ones we've got.
That'd be fine, except nuclear warheads don't have an indefinite shelf life. Our nuclear arsenal is in real need of modernization, not the least of which involves using modern electronics to make them safer.
At the moment, the US is the only nuclear power unable to produce new weapons grade plutonium - and that's a problem.
Well, I must say I'm bemused to see the grandparent modded +5 Insightful, while my post languishes.
I guess that says a good bit about the current state of /., and/or the level of critical thinking these days.
Ok, and what happens when the enemy launches a bunch of fighter jets to take out all your drones, which are now flying autonomously and just looking for a target, because communications and GPS are blocked? Your drones are nothing more than cruise missiles at this point.
Nope, not correct. Autonomous fighters would have to be able to make "human-like" decisions about the threat environment, friend versus foe, etc. The AI for that isn't all that hard, also consider that BVR IFF is already handled by electronics. Our 50+ mile range missiles are useless if we can't fire them BVR.
With just a few cameras, one could provide spherical coverage around a pilotless F-35, not to mention the radar, FLIR, and missile detection sensors. Unlike a human pilot, the AI would essentially continuously monitor its entire environment, probably several times a second.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just launch cruise missiles?
No. An excellent example of the cruise-missile replacement is the current generation Navy X-47B. It's an entirely autonomous bomber, which will take off and land from aircraft carriers. It's far cheaper than using cruise missiles, as the only expense is ordinance and fuel instead of a $1 million missile.
The whole point of drones is that you have remote human pilots who can respond to changing mission needs, rather than a fire-and-forget long-range missile, I would assume. If you block communications (and some navigation), you lose that advantage entirely, so there's little point in even having the drones to begin with.
There are lots of potential mission scenarios. One would be to launch entirely autonomous fighter missions for things like CAP. Another would be to launch air-to-ground missions where almost all the work is done by the drone, but a channel is left open specifically to approve strikes (man in the loop). Note that with satcom the plane can communicate stealthily (directional up to the satellite, everything in a large footprint gets the return signal). Another possibility would be to have a control aircraft nearby, and use a secure, short-range comm channel.
For air-to-air engagements, a high level of autonomy is important, as latency introduced by satellite comms is unacceptable.
iPad looks like a good reader, film viewer and game console, but a dead-end for anyone who wants to write, program or get real work done.
For the main iPad use cases, you missed "web browser" and "email reader".
The addition of a Bluetooth keyboard (which are getting better and better) moves it squarely into the sweet spot for writing.
For "programming and real work" you can use the keyboard plus some of the increasingly excellent remoting software. While it's a compromise (so is a laptop for that matter) you can use the full power of a beefy desktop or server. With a decent network connection it works well.
I like laptops as well, but the point is that even the iPad is becoming more and more viable as a laptop replacement for many people.
"Logo, the Movie!"
In which a graphical turtle will crawl around the screen drawing stuff under program control for an hour and a half...
...and it'd still be better and more original than at least half of what the movie industry is spewing these days.
We're basically just a living, breathing, seriously deformed donut.
FTFY.
(At any rate, that reminds me to get some exercise today...)
You aren't forced to use a single item on your list, they are all avoidable for realtime/embedded programming.
For hard real time, you shouldn't even do dynamic memory allocation as heap allocation is non-deterministic. That applies to both C and C++.
I'm not a giant C++ fan, but facts are facts.
His point has some validity in that Java interest is being diluted by newer (and many think improved) languages running on the JVM. In addition to the ones already mentioned, there are Clojure and Gosu as well, plus probably more I'm forgetting. Scala is the pick of the bunch, IMO.
The other thing to keep in mind, is that the Tiobe index is based on web searches. So, it's really a combination of which language is popular, multiplied by its confusion factor. If C is used half as much, but is three times as confusing, it will score higher... ;-)
The fact that many corporations use Java for some in-house monstrosity and hire people left and right does say nothing about UX experience of said programs. These programs are forced on workers. They can't decide on their own.
Yeah, unsuccessful "in-house monstrosities" like Twitter. Twitter was able to achieve performance using Scala+JVM that just wasn't possible using Ruby. FourSquare and LinkedIn are also using Scala.
We'll see how things go on the desktop going forward... There are some best of class JVM based programs like Eclipse and Azureus. Let's not forget Minecraft either...
Eclipse is just as good as Visual Studio, if not better with its rich ecosystem of plugins. It's telling that the various attempts at "native" Java have failed to perform as well as the Sun/Oracle JVM. There's also a reason that Java is now the #1 commercial language, having handily beat C++ and Pascal in the marketplace. There's a niche for a new great system programming language, because C++ isn't it. As I said before, I'd like to see Scala running on the LLVM.
Why would you ruin it like that with Java??
Ah, the ever-fashionable Java bashing.
Although Java has it's issues, it also has some serious upside. Scala and the various other alternative languages on the JVM are the most interesting recent developments in programming technology, IMO.
Granted, I'd like to see Scala on top of the LLVM with optional manual memory management and a native architecture extension system...but you have to start somewhere.
Lots of companies refuse to pay for training, because lots of people would just skill up and leave.
You're missing the point that in that case a lot of people will look for a job where there are tuition benefits.
Highly skilled, motivated people are both more likely to want continuing education, and to be able to find a job somewhere else.
Clearly you are no master of fuzzy logic! In this case "I lie about everything" means "everything but lying about everything".
See, it's simple!
Kudos to you AC! Not many of us have paranormal means of posting to /.!
I lie about everything
On the other hand, perhaps there's another explanation.....
Nuclear will be a necessary evil for the next 50-100 years.
What's "evil" about clean, safe, cheap power?
My beef is when they argue that nuclear is 'safer' than coal. Not true in any sense unless you exclude what 'could' happen.
It's true in the very real sense that coal causes thousands of deaths worldwide every year, while nuclear doesn't. What's the horrible death toll from Fukushima again?
Here's an article compariing various energy source's mortality rates.
Here's another touting nuclear as much safer, pointing out that coal pollution claims over 13,000 lives a year just in the US.
The tiger by the tail situation is that we need to get off fossil fuels basically yesterday, and the only available option for grid scale right now is nuclear. But we need to be investing in renewable now at the same time and usually the argument is that nuclear is the 'answer' and it isn't.
Nuclear is a fine answer, especially the next-gen and thorium based plants. I'm all for end-user solar as it becomes more cost-effective, but wind power is a loser that needs go away ASAP.
We can all hope that LENR pans out - that will mean colonization of the solar system, and flying cars for all! ;-)
1. The quoted efficiency (7.5%) seems to be quite low - aren't other more traditional cells at 20% or more? I don't see any indication that these cells cost half or less than traditional solar cells which would make up for the efficiency losses.
These obviously don't use much material, and the stated materials are silicon and nickel which are both very abundant. As long as the thin film cell material is also silicon, these should be very cheap to manufacture especially in quantity. These might be a great solution for the ever-elusive "solar roof tile". Even assuming no improvement in efficiency, a 75' by 25' roof installation could generate ~50 KWh of electricity per day under average conditions. That could help quite a bit with the electric bill, especially for AC during summer in hot climates.
2. There doesn't see to be any method of passing current from cells that are butted up or overlapping each other which means that there must be wires running to each cell. This would mean that the process of putting on different surfaces is not as simple as implied in the article summaries.
For the solar roof tile application, the conductors would be built into the tiles. Wires are not exactly a show-stopper in terms of technology. ;-)
Yes they were, look again.
I'll let you have the last word, since you seem to insist on it...O dim one. ;-)
The temps to which I'm referring are the running average, which doesn't vary rapidly on a scale of months. You bring nothing of substance to the conversation, and in fact automatically lose the debate by ad hominem.
It's worth noting that you have no worthwhile thoughts regarding the reality we face over the next few decades.
As I said, time will tell. At this moment things aren't looking like they'll conform to your belief system. ;-)
Over the full 20 years dummy. 20 years is short, 10 years is stupid.
You're claiming that ten years worth of sea level data can't show a trend? You're the stupid one.
Whether the trend will continue for the next 10 or more years is certainly a question, but no one can say for sure at the moment.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998.
You just don't learn, do you? 1998 was a local maxima, so in 2009, you thought could say "the last 10 years data shows cooling." But now of course you can't say that, because the last 10 years data doesn't start on a local maxima. The last 10 years data doesn't show cooling at all, but rising.*
Actually, you're wrong again. What a surprise.
If you look at the UAH satellite temperature data, the running average in 2002 was at 0.2 C above the baseline. As of Oct. 2012, it is running about 0.12 C above the baseline. No statistically significant warming - in fact there's been cooling. (Also FYI, in 1998 the running average hit 0.4 C above the baseline.)
Link to UAH temperature chart.
So now you want to cherry pick the last 12/13 years, again starting with the local maxima of 1998. Which shows you blatantly to be cherry picking. 12/13 years? What kind of period is that to choose?
Even NOAA admits that a 15 year pause in warming represents major problems for the climate modelers:
Source: NOAA State of the Climate 2008.
We are right at the threshold of such a fifteen year period now. As I pointed out previously, the Sun is unlikely to play along with the climate alarmists. It will certainly be devastating to them if we get any kind of cooling trend over the next 20-40 years, as I expect we will.
You're a cherry picking fraud and you just helped me to made it obvious to everyone. Thanks for playing.
(*Of course no one with shred of integrity would be trying to use 10 years, when for climate trends you need more like 30 years to start to lose the year to year noise. Hence my point about your stupid splitting of a 20 year graph of ocean levels into 2 10 year trends.)
It's interesting how the warmist alarmists are descending to name calling. It's a sign of desperation.
The beauty of this situation is we'll know soon enough who was right...just a few more years to go. Be patient, and prepared to eat a huge helping of crow.
In the meantime, let's reflect on the actual realities of CO2 concentration. What do you think the peak value will be? It seems to me that it's virtually impossible to get to the point where humanity as a whole is carbon-neutral before 2050, and even that date is very unlikely. China is currently building two large coal electric plants every week. My guess for peak CO2 concentration is between 500-600 PPM, up from the current ~400 PPM. So, you'd better hope I'm right and you're wrong.
Regardless of my thinking on the matter, I'm willing to meet you alarmists halfway. I would welcome a push for a massive buildout of next-generation nuclear for a number of reasons. That, combined with next-generation solar, could make a major difference in CO2 concentration going forward. It seems clear we're going to need a lot of high-density energy generation for the geoengineering necessary if AGW alarmism is in fact correct.
Sadly, despite the demonstrat
If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002.
No, he'll see a denialist bufoon trying to split a 20 year graph of noisy data into two distinct sections. He won't see the scientist that actually created that data doing something so dumb.
First of all, genius, the scientists collecting that data apply a linear regression right there on the chart, to the "noisy data". If you do the same thing to the most recent ten years worth (I have) you'll see that there's a significant decrease in the trend. That is all perfectly legitimate analysis.
I'm a realist, and believe in emperical verification of theory. So far the warmist alarmist predictions have been quite poor. They are adept at constant revisionism though.
You tried exactly the same back in 2009, to claim that global warming had stopped in 1998. However, 3 years more data of climing temperatures showed that you were exactly the idiot people said you were. Trying to make patterns out of short term noise.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998. You should know your subject matter better - that will prevent you from making a fool of yourself.
We'll see how the trends go as the Sun continues into the next solar Grand Minimum.
We're currently approaching the weak maximum of Cycle 24, so we're most likely looking at a minimum of twenty years of low solar activity - similar to that during the Little Ice Age. That will be a great empirical test of the dominance of CO2 concentration as a warming influence.
"Cherry picking" doesn't involve simply looking at the most recent ten years. There is a clear drop in the average rate of sea level increase. Again, that is in direct conflict with the idea that the current high CO2 concentration is driving temperatures inexorably upwards.
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
BS. If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002. This is entirely inconsistent with a) the claim being made by these researchers and b) the idea that the current high levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing unusual warming, swamping natural variability.
The ocean heat sink is supposed to receive something like 80% of the AGW related heat increase, causing thermal expansion as you state.
"Forget the experimental evidence - it's ruining our beautiful theory!"
If there were working implementations you might be right.
As long as you're wishing for future tech, you might as well hope that LENR pans out. NASA seems fairly convinced it's real. Flying cars at last! ;-)