The question has never been (aside from the fringe people) about if CO2 adds a heating component - it was always been HOW MUCH. Look up "Climate sensitivity" ( and the CO2 sensitivity has been all over the map ). And as for "basic physics", think of the problem like this: If you drink 1/4 cup of water @ 120 degF every hour, what is your core body temperature going to be after 18 hours (well start at 98 degF at hour 0)? You can figure out the amount of heat in the water to several decimal places (ie, you/KNOW/ the heat put into the system, not guessing at it like CO2).
Why is there a "controversy" about Global Warming, and why is there none about "Terrorism"?
For starters, it's hard to make a defensible argument for terrorism. Any "controversy" is usually concocted from the AGW side trying to avoid defending their positions.
My question is: From a risk management point of view, shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
If one is going to do a risk management assessment properly, one must enumerate the risks, enumerate the benefits, enumerate the costs, figure the impact of any mitigation and figure the probability of the event in the first place (and this list is just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's a couple more that I am forgetting). Your example is a very poor example - Terrorism IS NOT a imagined problem - there are several buildings missing from NYC and several large passenger planes destroyed just from 9/11. Contrast that with Global Warming, where it's not clear it's even a bad thing - warmer climates mean that plants are better off and people freeze to death less often. There seems to be less violent storms. Why would you do risk management on something that is beneficial?
Plus your simplistic scenario leaves out the cost of the mitigation. When "doing something" means you are forcing the poor of the world to live with the cost of higher energy prices (ie, higher food costs), one really has to question the motivation of the ones proposing these ideas (and if you don't think this is a the case, just look at what the production of ethanol and the diversion of corn to make this "green" fuel have caused).
Also high cost, but climate changes can be mitigated to the point where only little/no damage has to be suffered.
Excuse me? There is no reasonable mitigation strategy that I've seen where the results of the mitigation would stop AGW.
The latter can literally cost millions of lives with coastal areas becoming uninhabitable for decades, if not forever, with storms causing damages in the billions and unforeseeable effects to agriculture and nature (and of course tourism, but I guess that's the least of our concerns then). And we're not talking about some brown bodies being killed, that could well be millions of AMERICANS dead, so the usual "Anyone outside the US doesn't count as human to the US" won't apply.
And what SCIENCE are you basing this off of?! Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise where it says that the rise in sea level between 1870-2004 is 7.7 INCHES. Yes. Like millions have died from the 7.7 inches that has already happened. Good Grief. Statements like what you said is why I'm saying that you can replace "Global Warming" with "The Angry God" in many of the AGW arguments without changing any of the meaning, since there are no facts to back them up.
Yet we pump billions into the defense against terrorism, but we keep bickering on whether or not Global Warming may or may not happen. Anyone able to explain the sense in that?
If you are trying to compare a real problem (terrorism) to something you aren't even sure exists or not, you aren't making an apples to apples comparison. I would change the question and ask you, "well, we *KNOW* that asteroidd hit the Earth and that this has very, very bad effects. Why are we spending so much time worrying about global warming than we do about that?"
How can you say this is a good guide when it only shows the withdrawal amounts and not the consumption amounts? Not that there isn't water use issues, but distortions of reality like this doesn't help solve any problems.
From page 38 (I guess you stopped with the pictures):
Once-through (also known as open-loop) cooling refers to cooling systems in which water is
withdrawn from a source, circulated through heat exchangers, and then returned to a surface-water body. Large amounts of
water are needed for once-through cooling, but consumptive use is a small percentage of the total withdrawn (Solley and others,
1998).
and a little later:
The Eastern States (see division line in figure 12) accounted for 84 percent of total thermoelectric withdrawals.
So, in essence, the areas that have water issues uses water more wisely. The ones that have more water than they know what to do with, splurges. Yet another "problem" that doesn't really exist.
> Someone couldn't use the actual libraries that came with a GPL'd language in a commercial application
s/commercial/non-gpled/ (small nit). In any case, why not? If the interfaces themselves has no protection, all that has to be done is ship the original source of the library and the binary.so ( maybe even the.a ) of the libraries and call them at will. Header files might get tricky if it contains a lot of actual code (but this is an issue currently), but if you ignore this edge case, you'll see that there is no reason why any GPLed library is copyleft beyond what's in the library itself.
You don't understand how a copyleft works. The long and protracted discussion of it can be found here.. What mechanism do you think is used to make calling programs honor what the callee's license is?
From the sound of things, all GPLed libraries are now viewed like LGPLed libraries (er, or more accurately, non-modified combining is OK) in Europe... Not that that is a bad thing....
I think your definition of "tow" and the "tow" used in the article are different. I presume the one in the article thinks "tow" as in "what a tow truck" will do. If "towing" meant "Flat-Bedding", we wouldn't need the words "Flat-Bedding".
But. in reality, there's no difference between the two. To those who think wikileaks are terrorists, you guys are nuts. However, they are in no doubt engaged in plain and simple espionage. They are spies plain and simple, thus they should be treated as such. No worse, no better.
As to those who think secrets are bad, please go to whatever organization you work for and get them to have payroll information for all employees public or at minimum use facebook as your personal notebook/diary/logbook (and don't self-censure).
And, to those who think US diplomacy does no good, think of what kept India from attacking Pakistan when Mumbai attack happened (unless you think that that action would be a good thing).
Add police (well, at least ones with guns) and any armed guards (armored cards, secret service, nuclear facilities). Killing someone isn't the issue. It's what's being done to warrant it is.
Ok, I see what your gripe is. Yeh, by "plateau" I didn't mean tens of thousands of years of relatively flat temperatures. Just that we should be maxed out about now.
And what makes you it's "maxed out"? Just visually looking (you have to look at the raw numbers to get an exact amount), the trough to peak time for the previous cycles exceeds the current trough to current time. My TARDIS is broken. Is yours working?
It is not an assumption, rather what a truckload of research has been pointing to. But if you prefer let's say it's dark and it looks like it might be a gun, but you're not sure. The analogy is still fine.
I'm tired of people saying there's "a truckload of research". Cite references. You can't have an intelligent discussion without knowing what the basis of the opinion is. Back to your anaogy, I presume you are saying that CO2 is a gun. I know guns can easily kill. Show me a reference where it says were are going to release enough CO2 to be toxic. The dark example I agree is much better.
That's pretty much the same thing as saying the gun isn't loaded. Or that it might actually be pointed at your foot and not your head. Put that in if you like. The analogy still works.
If only works if you are trying to get me to react without thinking. Let's change your analogy to this: You are in a dark room and you have the gun, and you see something coming towards you. Do you shoot? Much harder to answer, isn't it?
However you are making a false dichotomy: solve the climate problem or help the poor. Any action we are able to take now on climate will help improve our options in the future should the dangerous effects of AGW prove to be true. And furthermore, significantly rising sea levels and changing weather will probably have a much greater adverse effect on the poor and disadvantaged than anyone else. So not doing anything to stop GW may also end up being equivalent to hurting the poor.
You have not examined the effect of the politics from the issue much, have you? We've already seen limiting of cheaper, combustion generators to push more limited solar ones (yes, it's renewable, the it doesn't work at night and is far more costly). If you want an egregious ( unrelated to AGW ) example (but same 'logic'), the EU obstructed US GM (genetically modified) corn to Somalia under famine conditions. If the EU cared that much, they should have just offered to grind it up into cornmeal. Another one would be the effect of banning DDT and malaria. Millions of lives were needlessly lost. The poor will be the ones who will mostly suffer.
So you're advocating ignoring a known threat just because there might be other unknown threats? That just seems silly.
I totally agree with you there. You'll note that I made no suggestions about what policy actions to take. I merely said we need to take the threat seriously. But I believe there is much we can do without sending global economies to the brink of disaster. As the science evolves we must be prepared to react. But doing nothing now is a poor choice. We at least need to invest heavily in green energy, so that we'll have something reliable we can switch to.
The sane non-AGW sites say exactly that. You don't need AGW to argue that it's a bad thing to send B$s to unstable parts of the world. You don't need cap-and-trade to push economical light technology or better insulation. AGW is just a distraction.
Well, if you want to disregard what the Wegman Report says, that's up to you.
The cheaper ones tend to report *cooler* temperatures than the more expensive, standalone sensors. So the "urban" stations actually show *less* global warming if averaged in a naive approach.
This is only true if there are no adjustments made to the temperature reading AND the "cooler" temperature is greater than the heating effect. If these aren't true, then obviously it would depend on the amount of the adjustment and amount of error in the reading.
2) There's a *lot* more than 4 stations in most regions which have correlated temperature anomalies. In the US, generally dozens.
You know very well that the # wasn't significant in the argument. It's fine to eliminate grossly incorrect readings this way. It's another thing entirely to adjust a good reading because the surrounding stations have more error.
3) The heat island effect *is* cancelled algorithmically, and this is verified by, among other things, comparing calm and windy days.
You have a remarkable confidence that this algorithm is very accurate. You can read the conclusion of here and see there are reasons to believe there are deficiencies in the algorithm. Even comparing calm/windy days will be influenced by the location of the unit (walls close by) and topological influences.
For something that is supposedly "validated", we are seeing an awful lot of instances of incorrect usage.
Yes, by people like Watts.
Proof by Innuendo. There's science for you. Are you actually trying to argue that algorithms are better than calibration?
er, ok. These graphs tell me the world is warmer than it was than the Little Ice Age. If you assume all this is due to CO2 (ie there is no solar forcing), one would expect and.2-.5degC if the CO2 level reached 2x pre-industrial levels (560ppm) assuming this guy did his math right.
2) Since when do you trust Phil Jones?
I don't trust EITHER side in this debate. I note that it is more significant if a proponent of AGW says there's no warming just as if a detractor of AGW says that there is warming.
3) Phil Jones is one climate scientist among several thousand. He is not the god of climate science.
Please. Saying he's just one climate scientist is like saying Joe Biden is just another government employee. It's being disingenuous. It would be much more difficult to make the AGW case if you took his work out of the picture.
4) Wrong. Jones says that there is a +0.12C warming trend for that time, but it's not long enough to be statistically significant. And he's right.
Sorry. I stand corrected. It was for the period Jan 2002-present with the -.12C.
It's idiotic how so many people keep trying to read trends into a couple years of extremely noisy data.
I have NO idea what YOU consider a trend when I wrote the question which is why I asked. Forgive me for not being psychic. Jones uses the word "trend" to talk about Jan 2002- (see question C)
Yes the earth is coming out of an ice age so we would expect to be at a plateau about now.
and what leads you to this conclusion? which dataset are we using here?
Temps reconstructed from ice cores. See Hansen's book or just about any serious book or site on global warming.
Ok. So we are looking at this. Only plateaus I see are at the bottom end of the cycle. The temperature spikes, then decays. We are currently at a spike. Please show me on the graph why we should be in a plateau.
You have a gun pointed at your head. Person A shows you evidence it is loaded. Person B shows you evidence it is not. If you value your life, you better be absolutely sure Person B is correct before you let someone pull the trigger. If you aren't absolutely sure, then you best not pull that trigger until you are.
That analogy has so many biases it isn't even funny. First, you assume that it is a fact that it is dangerous (a gun). Second, you assume that the bullet has enough propellant to kill you. Third, you assume there is no consequence for not allowing the trigger to be pulled (and if don't think that carbon limits won't hurt the poor of the world, you should go count the # of Indians and Chinese that were lifted from poverty in the last 20 years). Fourth and finally, you assume that it's that gun and not some other thing behind your head that you aren't looking at because you are so fixated on the gun that might to kill you.
The point being that the evidence that GW is insignificant really needs to completely overwhelm the evidence that it is, and it's just not doing that yet.
But we don't live in a perfect world. If you drive, you risk getting into a fatal accident. If you walk, you risk tripping and breaking your neck. An asteroid can crash into the planet and wipe out all of humanity. That view is perfectly fine if there is no cost in making the decision. Once there is a cost, then cost/benefit comes into play. You can hold that the danger merits keeping billions of people in poverty. My opinion is that that is immoral, but it is just that, an opinion.
If the climate is so complex, how could a "straightforward calculation" be expected to give you anything other than a very gross ballpark figure?
That's the whole point of the article. In short, CO2's GHG component can at most account for ~1degC because that's how much heat GHG can trap as a GHG. This is solid science. To get more than that, you have to add some other process other than simple GHG warming. That's not to say such a process doesn't exist, just as there might be a process that lessens the net CO2 warming. I don't think anyone will say we know all or even most of the processes that make up our climate.
1) Temps in the Eemian were about that much higher than now, yet sea levels were several meters higher. We don't know the cause for sure,
well, given that CO2 was lower then (if you go by the ice cores), it culprit wasn't CO2....
but a good guess would seem to be that the higher temps caused ice caps and glaciers to melt.
er, so the Earth was warmer in the past. No argument there. Though if you are trying to say it's the atmospheric temperature that caused this melting (as opposed to warmer the sea temperatures), I think there's lots of room for dispute.
2) 1 degree is on the low end of current predictions.
Not from just GHG warming. The IPCC adds a positive feedback to get >=2degC.
That's the IPCC AR4 conclusion. If you know anything about climate science, I would assume you'd have heard of it and be awa
Yes the earth is coming out of an ice age so we would expect to be at a plateau about now.
and what leads you to this conclusion? which dataset are we using here?
The problem is we're at the plateau but CO2 is now FAR higher than it was during any of the previous plateaus over the last few hundred thousand years.
So are the number of humans (and human artifacts (cities, roads)), cows and corn farms on this world. All contribute to warming. The point being you have to show it is significant.
You may not believe CO2 makes much difference, but at this point you would have to call that a faith position
er, why? Did you read the link?
If nothing else in the system changes, a doubling of CO2 from the preindustrial levels is estimated to produce a temperature rise of 1.2 to 1.3C (2.2 to 2.3F). Again, the calculation is straightforward and there is little controversy about the figure among scientists. Now recall that over the last century and a half CO2 levels have risen from a preindustrial 280 ppm to around 380 ppm. At the same time global average mean temperature has risen (depending on who you believe) 0.8 to 1.0C.
I don't think I am unreasonable in thinking 1degC isn't that significant. Mind you, I didn't check his math, but the logic is sound.
because there's significant evidence that indicates doubling CO2 will increase global temps by like 2-5 degrees C.
SHOW ME REFERENCES. Tell me exactly how the calculated ~1degC inflates to 2-5degC. From what I have gathered, the 2-5degC is the faith position here.
Further investigations like the recent work by Lindzen and Choi may revise our understanding of the role of CO2, but so far alternate explanations are far from being totally convincing.
Explanations of what? That the climate is WAY more complicated than "CO2 = lots of warming"? Just google "Susan Solomon" 2010 (choose from a source you are willing to believe). Or try "soot glaciers". It seems something comes out every other week now that hints that CO2 is far less significant than what the alarmists say.
So then your sources are a Russian think tank (who, by the way, tried to publish papers on their claims, but failed to pass peer-review on them), and now a meteorologist (*very* different from a climatologist) and a computer programmer? Really?
What is your point? That a meteorologist or a computer programmer cannot in any circumstances prove a climatologist wrong? They can't say the the use of statistics in the model is flawed, or there is a coding error in the model? I didn't realize that climatologists were born perfect.
Here's why the idiots who push these "omitting stations" claims can't pass peer-review on them: they're *supposed* to omit stations. It's not done manually; it's done algorithmically.
This is one of the dumber statements I've seen in this discussion. Suppose you have 4 stations in a geographic area. 2 are out in the middle of fields way away from any development (and been this way for the last 80+ years) and 2 right next to human development. Do you not see a) which two (all other things being equal) of the 4 stations are going to give you better temperature data b) what the net effect of deleting/algorithmically adjusting the data from the data from the fields is going to be? (hint: these are NOT going to show any significant urban heat island effects).
Yes, a lot of the measuring units don't give accurate data. They can be poorly maintained, break down, degrade... nothing new to remote sensing. All this means is that you have to assess each station individually to figure out what errors (if any) the station has. To omit data just because it doesn't match it's neighboring stations is a stupid algorithm if all its neighboring stations are affected by the urban heat island effect and the one you are omitting isn't - omitting the data is just going to produce a heating bias.
The results of this are then validated by a number of subsequent papers
For something that is supposedly "validated", we are seeing an awful lot of instances of incorrect usage.
One, the same trends show up when you just dumb-average all stations, or just rural stations, or just urban stations.
What "trends" are you talking about? Like the trend line of 1995-2009 (-0.12C per decade - yes, that's a minus - from Phil Jones no less)? Or are you talking about the one since 1850?
Even more inconvenient is that the stations that Watts' team of deniers flags as "bad" show *more* warming than those that he flags as "good". Why? Because the "bad" stations tend to be located near human settlement, and are generally a cheaper type of sensor than the fully-standalone ones that tend to be in "good" locations. The cheaper sensors have a small tendency to report cooler temperatures than the better, standalone ones.
Are you saying a station next to a heat pump discharge is going to give you accurate readings? Or you do not think the urban heat island effect is real? Or do you not think a survey of t he sensing sites is useful? Don't see what you are trying to get at.
If you have actually read both sides, I don't think you have read the other side very well. All the serious ones (if you can filter out the noise) say not that there is no global warming - they say that it is not significant. Given that the Little Ice Age ended ~1850, it should surprise no one that 160 years later, the planet is warmer than what it was back then. A very good read about the matter can be seen here.. It (as all other things) is incomplete, for sure, but is the best even-handed summary that I've come across.
Citations? One can argue if you want to believe them or not, but: US data., Austrailian data., and African data.. And there's plenty more of non-data related repudiations (wrongly quoted, science does not support the conclusion....) if you bother looking.
Enjoy that you can sell that peice of software for 5k right now and accept that its not worth it. If you want to continue making money off it, stop trying to make back your entire development cost on your first sale and charge a price for it that makes it so no one else is going to bother doing it themselves, its cheaper to just buy yours.
You were doing relatively well up to here. If you make minimum wage ($6.55 in the US), you will make $13.1K/year. That means you have to sell at least 3 of your so called "not worth it" $5k software just to make that (this is not including overhead). The equation is really simple - cost/unit x # of paying users/year = your yearly wage. BTW, if you don't like paying everything up front, you should hate the GPL, since that is *exactly* what GPL encourages.
Thats the way every other industry works, developers are just too stupid to see that at the moment, and the people we sell to are just now starting to catch on to that as well.
There are few other industries that have this problem. If you make hardware (say, memory chips), if a competitor comes in and gives away memory for free, they are charged with dumping. The only industry that I can think of that deals with "free" content is the broadcast industry and it's not a bunch of roses there either.
This scenario is the same with others that have to compete with product dumping. The ones that can survive in the environment are ones with a "brand" name. All the small frys go under.
You are growing horizontally (by adding drives), therefore, you are increasing the probability for failure as you are growing the RAID set.
One super neat thing that isn't mentioned much about ZFS is that you can expand a set by replacing the current drives with larger drives - when you replace all the drives in your set, you will see the additional space. So, next year, when I upgrade my 3x1tb with the 2+tb drives that will be out, I'll be able to get a 3x2+tb set with no downtime. Anyone who thinks that one can afford the time to copy data to a bigger filesystem for more space is nuts in the days of TB drives.
No, but you can usually count on a more up-to-date system and generally a stable one at that. Solaris only has a few releases, Linux has many, many more (mostly because it is OSS).
Solaris (SXCE) has a release every other week (approximately). For you linux people with your head in the sand (or somewhere else), there are 3 flavors of solaris. Opensolaris (gened ~6 months), Solaris Express community edition (gened every 2 weeks or so), and Solaris 10. Opensolaris has it's packages updated roughly a few weeks after an SXCE build comes out (though they haven't reved the based installed image yet).
As for your linux tested statement, using that logic, you should run windows.....
This "story: just strikes me as another example of the editors letting an advertisement for a dubious product slip through as if it were a real story. Nothing new there.
I agree 100%. The g15 is remarkably easy to figure out ( even got the linux driver to work under solaris without adding any new dents to my head ). Once you get the daemon running, dealing with the button bindings is relatively simple. The *only* drawback (and it is a significant one) that is worth mentioning is that this keyboard is not kvm friendly - if you do a USB switch while it is in the middle of updating the display, something WILL get confused. Not really the keyboard's fault as practically all usb devices will get upset if you yank it out in the middle of the transfer, but it's easy to forget when you are used to a usb switch.
And just wait until you can patent solar systems. Yes, the vogons will come not to build a hyperspace bypass, but rather for trademark/patent infringement...
Slashdot Mirror
The question has never been (aside from the fringe people) about if CO2 adds a heating component - it was always been HOW MUCH. Look up "Climate sensitivity" ( and the CO2 sensitivity has been all over the map ). And as for "basic physics", think of the problem like this: If you drink 1/4 cup of water @ 120 degF every hour, what is your core body temperature going to be after 18 hours (well start at 98 degF at hour 0)? You can figure out the amount of heat in the water to several decimal places (ie, you /KNOW/ the heat put into the system, not guessing at it like CO2).
Why is there a "controversy" about Global Warming, and why is there none about "Terrorism"?
For starters, it's hard to make a defensible argument for terrorism. Any "controversy" is usually concocted from the AGW side trying to avoid defending their positions.
My question is: From a risk management point of view, shouldn't it be the other way 'round?
If one is going to do a risk management assessment properly, one must enumerate the risks, enumerate the benefits, enumerate the costs, figure the impact of any mitigation and figure the probability of the event in the first place (and this list is just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's a couple more that I am forgetting). Your example is a very poor example - Terrorism IS NOT a imagined problem - there are several buildings missing from NYC and several large passenger planes destroyed just from 9/11. Contrast that with Global Warming, where it's not clear it's even a bad thing - warmer climates mean that plants are better off and people freeze to death less often. There seems to be less violent storms. Why would you do risk management on something that is beneficial? Plus your simplistic scenario leaves out the cost of the mitigation. When "doing something" means you are forcing the poor of the world to live with the cost of higher energy prices (ie, higher food costs), one really has to question the motivation of the ones proposing these ideas (and if you don't think this is a the case, just look at what the production of ethanol and the diversion of corn to make this "green" fuel have caused).
Also high cost, but climate changes can be mitigated to the point where only little/no damage has to be suffered.
Excuse me? There is no reasonable mitigation strategy that I've seen where the results of the mitigation would stop AGW.
The latter can literally cost millions of lives with coastal areas becoming uninhabitable for decades, if not forever, with storms causing damages in the billions and unforeseeable effects to agriculture and nature (and of course tourism, but I guess that's the least of our concerns then). And we're not talking about some brown bodies being killed, that could well be millions of AMERICANS dead, so the usual "Anyone outside the US doesn't count as human to the US" won't apply.
And what SCIENCE are you basing this off of?! Look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise where it says that the rise in sea level between 1870-2004 is 7.7 INCHES. Yes. Like millions have died from the 7.7 inches that has already happened. Good Grief. Statements like what you said is why I'm saying that you can replace "Global Warming" with "The Angry God" in many of the AGW arguments without changing any of the meaning, since there are no facts to back them up.
Yet we pump billions into the defense against terrorism, but we keep bickering on whether or not Global Warming may or may not happen. Anyone able to explain the sense in that?
If you are trying to compare a real problem (terrorism) to something you aren't even sure exists or not, you aren't making an apples to apples comparison. I would change the question and ask you, "well, we *KNOW* that asteroidd hit the Earth and that this has very, very bad effects. Why are we spending so much time worrying about global warming than we do about that?"
-
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Once-through (also known as open-loop) cooling refers to cooling systems in which water is withdrawn from a source, circulated through heat exchangers, and then returned to a surface-water body. Large amounts of water are needed for once-through cooling, but consumptive use is a small percentage of the total withdrawn (Solley and others, 1998).
and a little later:
The Eastern States (see division line in figure 12) accounted for 84 percent of total thermoelectric withdrawals.
So, in essence, the areas that have water issues uses water more wisely. The ones that have more water than they know what to do with, splurges. Yet another "problem" that doesn't really exist.
> Someone couldn't use the actual libraries that came with a GPL'd language in a commercial application
.so ( maybe even the .a ) of the libraries and call them at will. Header files might get tricky if it contains a lot of actual code (but this is an issue currently), but if you ignore this edge case, you'll see that there is no reason why any GPLed library is copyleft beyond what's in the library itself.
s/commercial/non-gpled/ (small nit). In any case, why not? If the interfaces themselves has no protection, all that has to be done is ship the original source of the library and the binary
You don't understand how a copyleft works. The long and protracted discussion of it can be found here.. What mechanism do you think is used to make calling programs honor what the callee's license is?
From the sound of things, all GPLed libraries are now viewed like LGPLed libraries (er, or more accurately, non-modified combining is OK) in Europe... Not that that is a bad thing....
I think your definition of "tow" and the "tow" used in the article are different. I presume the one in the article thinks "tow" as in "what a tow truck" will do. If "towing" meant "Flat-Bedding", we wouldn't need the words "Flat-Bedding".
But. in reality, there's no difference between the two. To those who think wikileaks are terrorists, you guys are nuts. However, they are in no doubt engaged in plain and simple espionage. They are spies plain and simple, thus they should be treated as such. No worse, no better.
As to those who think secrets are bad, please go to whatever organization you work for and get them to have payroll information for all employees public or at minimum use facebook as your personal notebook/diary/logbook (and don't self-censure).
And, to those who think US diplomacy does no good, think of what kept India from attacking Pakistan when Mumbai attack happened (unless you think that that action would be a good thing).
Add police (well, at least ones with guns) and any armed guards (armored cards, secret service, nuclear facilities). Killing someone isn't the issue. It's what's being done to warrant it is.
It'll be the entity with the return number on the caller id......
Ok, I see what your gripe is. Yeh, by "plateau" I didn't mean tens of thousands of years of relatively flat temperatures. Just that we should be maxed out about now.
And what makes you it's "maxed out"? Just visually looking (you have to look at the raw numbers to get an exact amount), the trough to peak time for the previous cycles exceeds the current trough to current time. My TARDIS is broken. Is yours working?
It is not an assumption, rather what a truckload of research has been pointing to. But if you prefer let's say it's dark and it looks like it might be a gun, but you're not sure. The analogy is still fine.
I'm tired of people saying there's "a truckload of research". Cite references. You can't have an intelligent discussion without knowing what the basis of the opinion is. Back to your anaogy, I presume you are saying that CO2 is a gun. I know guns can easily kill. Show me a reference where it says were are going to release enough CO2 to be toxic. The dark example I agree is much better.
That's pretty much the same thing as saying the gun isn't loaded. Or that it might actually be pointed at your foot and not your head. Put that in if you like. The analogy still works.
If only works if you are trying to get me to react without thinking. Let's change your analogy to this: You are in a dark room and you have the gun, and you see something coming towards you. Do you shoot? Much harder to answer, isn't it?
However you are making a false dichotomy: solve the climate problem or help the poor. Any action we are able to take now on climate will help improve our options in the future should the dangerous effects of AGW prove to be true. And furthermore, significantly rising sea levels and changing weather will probably have a much greater adverse effect on the poor and disadvantaged than anyone else. So not doing anything to stop GW may also end up being equivalent to hurting the poor.
You have not examined the effect of the politics from the issue much, have you? We've already seen limiting of cheaper, combustion generators to push more limited solar ones (yes, it's renewable, the it doesn't work at night and is far more costly). If you want an egregious ( unrelated to AGW ) example (but same 'logic'), the EU obstructed US GM (genetically modified) corn to Somalia under famine conditions. If the EU cared that much, they should have just offered to grind it up into cornmeal. Another one would be the effect of banning DDT and malaria. Millions of lives were needlessly lost. The poor will be the ones who will mostly suffer.
So you're advocating ignoring a known threat just because there might be other unknown threats? That just seems silly.
No. I'm saying (for example) if soot is what is causing a bulk of the glacial melting you are worried about, you should concentrate on soot.
I totally agree with you there. You'll note that I made no suggestions about what policy actions to take. I merely said we need to take the threat seriously. But I believe there is much we can do without sending global economies to the brink of disaster. As the science evolves we must be prepared to react. But doing nothing now is a poor choice. We at least need to invest heavily in green energy, so that we'll have something reliable we can switch to.
The sane non-AGW sites say exactly that. You don't need AGW to argue that it's a bad thing to send B$s to unstable parts of the world. You don't need cap-and-trade to push economical light technology or better insulation. AGW is just a distraction.
Oh, ok, you mean ignoring feedbacks. Yeh, 1 deg C
Obligatory xkcd ref.
Well, if you want to disregard what the Wegman Report says, that's up to you.
The cheaper ones tend to report *cooler* temperatures than the more expensive, standalone sensors. So the "urban" stations actually show *less* global warming if averaged in a naive approach.
This is only true if there are no adjustments made to the temperature reading AND the "cooler" temperature is greater than the heating effect. If these aren't true, then obviously it would depend on the amount of the adjustment and amount of error in the reading.
2) There's a *lot* more than 4 stations in most regions which have correlated temperature anomalies. In the US, generally dozens.
You know very well that the # wasn't significant in the argument. It's fine to eliminate grossly incorrect readings this way. It's another thing entirely to adjust a good reading because the surrounding stations have more error.
3) The heat island effect *is* cancelled algorithmically, and this is verified by, among other things, comparing calm and windy days.
You have a remarkable confidence that this algorithm is very accurate. You can read the conclusion of here and see there are reasons to believe there are deficiencies in the algorithm. Even comparing calm/windy days will be influenced by the location of the unit (walls close by) and topological influences.
For something that is supposedly "validated", we are seeing an awful lot of instances of incorrect usage.
Yes, by people like Watts.
Proof by Innuendo. There's science for you. Are you actually trying to argue that algorithms are better than calibration?
1) This, this, and this.
er, ok. These graphs tell me the world is warmer than it was than the Little Ice Age. If you assume all this is due to CO2 (ie there is no solar forcing), one would expect and .2-.5degC if the CO2 level reached 2x pre-industrial levels (560ppm) assuming this guy did his math right.
2) Since when do you trust Phil Jones?
I don't trust EITHER side in this debate. I note that it is more significant if a proponent of AGW says there's no warming just as if a detractor of AGW says that there is warming.
3) Phil Jones is one climate scientist among several thousand. He is not the god of climate science.
Please. Saying he's just one climate scientist is like saying Joe Biden is just another government employee. It's being disingenuous. It would be much more difficult to make the AGW case if you took his work out of the picture.
4) Wrong. Jones says that there is a +0.12C warming trend for that time, but it's not long enough to be statistically significant. And he's right.
Sorry. I stand corrected. It was for the period Jan 2002-present with the -.12C.
It's idiotic how so many people keep trying to read trends into a couple years of extremely noisy data.
I have NO idea what YOU consider a trend when I wrote the question which is why I asked. Forgive me for not being psychic. Jones uses the word "trend" to talk about Jan 2002- (see question C)
Yes the earth is coming out of an ice age so we would expect to be at a plateau about now.
and what leads you to this conclusion? which dataset are we using here?
Temps reconstructed from ice cores. See Hansen's book or just about any serious book or site on global warming.
Ok. So we are looking at this. Only plateaus I see are at the bottom end of the cycle. The temperature spikes, then decays. We are currently at a spike. Please show me on the graph why we should be in a plateau.
You have a gun pointed at your head. Person A shows you evidence it is loaded. Person B shows you evidence it is not. If you value your life, you better be absolutely sure Person B is correct before you let someone pull the trigger. If you aren't absolutely sure, then you best not pull that trigger until you are.
That analogy has so many biases it isn't even funny. First, you assume that it is a fact that it is dangerous (a gun). Second, you assume that the bullet has enough propellant to kill you. Third, you assume there is no consequence for not allowing the trigger to be pulled (and if don't think that carbon limits won't hurt the poor of the world, you should go count the # of Indians and Chinese that were lifted from poverty in the last 20 years). Fourth and finally, you assume that it's that gun and not some other thing behind your head that you aren't looking at because you are so fixated on the gun that might to kill you.
The point being that the evidence that GW is insignificant really needs to completely overwhelm the evidence that it is, and it's just not doing that yet.
But we don't live in a perfect world. If you drive, you risk getting into a fatal accident. If you walk, you risk tripping and breaking your neck. An asteroid can crash into the planet and wipe out all of humanity. That view is perfectly fine if there is no cost in making the decision. Once there is a cost, then cost/benefit comes into play. You can hold that the danger merits keeping billions of people in poverty. My opinion is that that is immoral, but it is just that, an opinion.
If the climate is so complex, how could a "straightforward calculation" be expected to give you anything other than a very gross ballpark figure?
That's the whole point of the article. In short, CO2's GHG component can at most account for ~1degC because that's how much heat GHG can trap as a GHG. This is solid science. To get more than that, you have to add some other process other than simple GHG warming. That's not to say such a process doesn't exist, just as there might be a process that lessens the net CO2 warming. I don't think anyone will say we know all or even most of the processes that make up our climate.
1) Temps in the Eemian were about that much higher than now, yet sea levels were several meters higher. We don't know the cause for sure,
well, given that CO2 was lower then (if you go by the ice cores), it culprit wasn't CO2....
but a good guess would seem to be that the higher temps caused ice caps and glaciers to melt.
er, so the Earth was warmer in the past. No argument there. Though if you are trying to say it's the atmospheric temperature that caused this melting (as opposed to warmer the sea temperatures), I think there's lots of room for dispute.
2) 1 degree is on the low end of current predictions.
Not from just GHG warming. The IPCC adds a positive feedback to get >=2degC.
That's the IPCC AR4 conclusion. If you know anything about climate science, I would assume you'd have heard of it and be awa
Yes the earth is coming out of an ice age so we would expect to be at a plateau about now.
and what leads you to this conclusion? which dataset are we using here?
The problem is we're at the plateau but CO2 is now FAR higher than it was during any of the previous plateaus over the last few hundred thousand years.
So are the number of humans (and human artifacts (cities, roads)), cows and corn farms on this world. All contribute to warming. The point being you have to show it is significant.
You may not believe CO2 makes much difference, but at this point you would have to call that a faith position
er, why? Did you read the link?
If nothing else in the system changes, a doubling of CO2 from the preindustrial levels is estimated to produce a temperature rise of 1.2 to 1.3C (2.2 to 2.3F). Again, the calculation is straightforward and there is little controversy about the figure among scientists. Now recall that over the last century and a half CO2 levels have risen from a preindustrial 280 ppm to around 380 ppm. At the same time global average mean temperature has risen (depending on who you believe) 0.8 to 1.0C.
I don't think I am unreasonable in thinking 1degC isn't that significant. Mind you, I didn't check his math, but the logic is sound.
because there's significant evidence that indicates doubling CO2 will increase global temps by like 2-5 degrees C.
SHOW ME REFERENCES. Tell me exactly how the calculated ~1degC inflates to 2-5degC. From what I have gathered, the 2-5degC is the faith position here.
Further investigations like the recent work by Lindzen and Choi may revise our understanding of the role of CO2, but so far alternate explanations are far from being totally convincing.
Explanations of what? That the climate is WAY more complicated than "CO2 = lots of warming"? Just google "Susan Solomon" 2010 (choose from a source you are willing to believe). Or try "soot glaciers". It seems something comes out every other week now that hints that CO2 is far less significant than what the alarmists say.
So then your sources are a Russian think tank (who, by the way, tried to publish papers on their claims, but failed to pass peer-review on them), and now a meteorologist (*very* different from a climatologist) and a computer programmer? Really?
What is your point? That a meteorologist or a computer programmer cannot in any circumstances prove a climatologist wrong? They can't say the the use of statistics in the model is flawed, or there is a coding error in the model? I didn't realize that climatologists were born perfect.
Here's why the idiots who push these "omitting stations" claims can't pass peer-review on them: they're *supposed* to omit stations. It's not done manually; it's done algorithmically.
This is one of the dumber statements I've seen in this discussion. Suppose you have 4 stations in a geographic area. 2 are out in the middle of fields way away from any development (and been this way for the last 80+ years) and 2 right next to human development. Do you not see a) which two (all other things being equal) of the 4 stations are going to give you better temperature data b) what the net effect of deleting/algorithmically adjusting the data from the data from the fields is going to be? (hint: these are NOT going to show any significant urban heat island effects). Yes, a lot of the measuring units don't give accurate data. They can be poorly maintained, break down, degrade... nothing new to remote sensing. All this means is that you have to assess each station individually to figure out what errors (if any) the station has. To omit data just because it doesn't match it's neighboring stations is a stupid algorithm if all its neighboring stations are affected by the urban heat island effect and the one you are omitting isn't - omitting the data is just going to produce a heating bias.
The results of this are then validated by a number of subsequent papers
For something that is supposedly "validated", we are seeing an awful lot of instances of incorrect usage.
One, the same trends show up when you just dumb-average all stations, or just rural stations, or just urban stations.
What "trends" are you talking about? Like the trend line of 1995-2009 (-0.12C per decade - yes, that's a minus - from Phil Jones no less)? Or are you talking about the one since 1850?
Even more inconvenient is that the stations that Watts' team of deniers flags as "bad" show *more* warming than those that he flags as "good". Why? Because the "bad" stations tend to be located near human settlement, and are generally a cheaper type of sensor than the fully-standalone ones that tend to be in "good" locations. The cheaper sensors have a small tendency to report cooler temperatures than the better, standalone ones.
Are you saying a station next to a heat pump discharge is going to give you accurate readings? Or you do not think the urban heat island effect is real? Or do you not think a survey of t he sensing sites is useful? Don't see what you are trying to get at.
If you have actually read both sides, I don't think you have read the other side very well. All the serious ones (if you can filter out the noise) say not that there is no global warming - they say that it is not significant. Given that the Little Ice Age ended ~1850, it should surprise no one that 160 years later, the planet is warmer than what it was back then. A very good read about the matter can be seen here.. It (as all other things) is incomplete, for sure, but is the best even-handed summary that I've come across.
Citations? One can argue if you want to believe them or not, but: US data., Austrailian data., and African data.. And there's plenty more of non-data related repudiations (wrongly quoted, science does not support the conclusion....) if you bother looking.
Enjoy that you can sell that peice of software for 5k right now and accept that its not worth it. If you want to continue making money off it, stop trying to make back your entire development cost on your first sale and charge a price for it that makes it so no one else is going to bother doing it themselves, its cheaper to just buy yours.
You were doing relatively well up to here. If you make minimum wage ($6.55 in the US), you will make $13.1K/year. That means you have to sell at least 3 of your so called "not worth it" $5k software just to make that (this is not including overhead). The equation is really simple - cost/unit x # of paying users/year = your yearly wage. BTW, if you don't like paying everything up front, you should hate the GPL, since that is *exactly* what GPL encourages.
Thats the way every other industry works, developers are just too stupid to see that at the moment, and the people we sell to are just now starting to catch on to that as well.
There are few other industries that have this problem. If you make hardware (say, memory chips), if a competitor comes in and gives away memory for free, they are charged with dumping. The only industry that I can think of that deals with "free" content is the broadcast industry and it's not a bunch of roses there either.
This scenario is the same with others that have to compete with product dumping. The ones that can survive in the environment are ones with a "brand" name. All the small frys go under.
Then we would have a Twilight Zone episode.
You are growing horizontally (by adding drives), therefore, you are increasing the probability for failure as you are growing the RAID set.
One super neat thing that isn't mentioned much about ZFS is that you can expand a set by replacing the current drives with larger drives - when you replace all the drives in your set, you will see the additional space. So, next year, when I upgrade my 3x1tb with the 2+tb drives that will be out, I'll be able to get a 3x2+tb set with no downtime. Anyone who thinks that one can afford the time to copy data to a bigger filesystem for more space is nuts in the days of TB drives.
No, but you can usually count on a more up-to-date system and generally a stable one at that. Solaris only has a few releases, Linux has many, many more (mostly because it is OSS).
Solaris (SXCE) has a release every other week (approximately). For you linux people with your head in the sand (or somewhere else), there are 3 flavors of solaris. Opensolaris (gened ~6 months), Solaris Express community edition (gened every 2 weeks or so), and Solaris 10. Opensolaris has it's packages updated roughly a few weeks after an SXCE build comes out (though they haven't reved the based installed image yet). As for your linux tested statement, using that logic, you should run windows.....
This "story: just strikes me as another example of the editors letting an advertisement for a dubious product slip through as if it were a real story. Nothing new there.
I agree 100%. The g15 is remarkably easy to figure out ( even got the linux driver to work under solaris without adding any new dents to my head ). Once you get the daemon running, dealing with the button bindings is relatively simple. The *only* drawback (and it is a significant one) that is worth mentioning is that this keyboard is not kvm friendly - if you do a USB switch while it is in the middle of updating the display, something WILL get confused. Not really the keyboard's fault as practically all usb devices will get upset if you yank it out in the middle of the transfer, but it's easy to forget when you are used to a usb switch.
ergo, when penguins fly? :)
You laugh now....