Following your advice, I looked at the overview from the first IPCC report, and in section 2 it lists one prediction as about a 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature between the time of that report (1990) and 2025. It's not 2025 yet, but based on an observed warming of about 0.16 degree Celsius per decade, we should see a warming of about 0.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2025. It falls a bit short of one full degree, but the prediction was literally "about 1 degree Celsius," and 0.8 degrees Celsius is in fact about 1 degree Celsius.
I think the left-wing politicians do see this. But when they talk about raising prices or increasing taxes, right-wing politicians complain about tax-and-spend. It's the right-wing that want to keep their hands off the market and let the market do what it will and complain about the left-wing interfering in the free market.
A little bit of warming may be good, but there's widespread agreement that we want to avoid a warming of over 2 degrees Celsius due to the negative consequences. It now looks as though we won't even be able to meet that modest goal.
Our models can been getting better and more accurate. But even the very basic model Arrhenius used was fairly accurate. He estimated a climate sensitivity of 4 to 5 degrees C, and our current estimate is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. What about these models do you think has been "disproved time and again"? They've only been confirmed, because the warming Arrhenius predicted has now been observed.
Running out of fossil fuels certainly is a real issue. We need to find alternative sources of energy because fossil fuels will run out some day. By developing the technologies now, we can drive the price down so it'll be easy to switch over to these sources long before fossil fuel costs skyrocket. And even dealing with one foot sea level rise will cost trillions, so we're committed to spend the money one way or the other. The issue is not whether or not to deal with climate change and develop alternative energy sources. We need to do both anyway. Let's spend money on the real issues rather than stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist this fiscal quarter.
The sea ice extent is the surface area of ice that is floating in the sea. Unfortunately, there is more ice floating in the sea because it's calving off the land. The total volume or mass of ice in the Antarctic is decreasing.
I agree that correlation is not causation, but greenhouse gases do cause warming, and the increase in greenhouse gases is due to human activity. That is causation.
Now we just need to convince the Arctic ice, Antarctic ice, and Greenland ice sheet to stop their damn melting. Please do tell them about the fraudulent data they're using.
No one is proposing hamstringing human civilization that I can see. We're talking about moving into the 21st century by shifting to energy production that is based on sources that will last far longer than fossil fuels will last. By reducing the amount of warming and ocean acidification, we're helping ensure future economic prosperity. I suppose change is just scary to some people.
Arrhenius predicted global warming over 100 years ago, because carbon dioxide is emitted by burning fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means increasing it will cause warming. Please do explain how this logic is flawed.
Also, no one is proposing we move back to caves. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions means getting power from sources such as the sun, and improving energy efficiency. It means moving into the high-tech 21st century, not back to low-tech times. It's what we need to do anyway, because no matter how much we'd like them to, fossil fuels will run out some day.
The hostility towards creationism has to do with the idea that "this book says it, so it must be true!" In these experiments, we'd be looking for evidence that the universe was created, not just taking a book's word for it. I grant you that the universe could have been created 6000 years ago by some kind of supernatural entity. Just show me the evidence for it.
Why do you say astrology can't be tested? I have heard of scientific tests of astrology, and I think they all show that the forecasts do no better than chance. I found a segment from Carl Sagan's Cosmos about the topic.
I did a small project in Simulink (part of MATLAB) which uses graphical-based programming. It was also quite tedious. Writing text files seems so much easier to me. I wish all system administration was based on simply editing text files... if something wasn't working I could just look at the code and see what is wrong, rather than typing obscure queries to try to determine the current settings.
I'm not using beta and I got 15 mod points yesterday. I'm using them sparingly, generally not modding down the complaints. It'll all blow over soon enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like bitcoin is more useful as a payment method (like a check or credit card or Paypal) than as a separate currency.
If it's risky as an investment, how useful is it as a currency? I would expect a currency to be one of the least risky forms of property to be useful.
Following your advice, I looked at the overview from the first IPCC report, and in section 2 it lists one prediction as about a 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature between the time of that report (1990) and 2025. It's not 2025 yet, but based on an observed warming of about 0.16 degree Celsius per decade, we should see a warming of about 0.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2025. It falls a bit short of one full degree, but the prediction was literally "about 1 degree Celsius," and 0.8 degrees Celsius is in fact about 1 degree Celsius.
I think the left-wing politicians do see this. But when they talk about raising prices or increasing taxes, right-wing politicians complain about tax-and-spend. It's the right-wing that want to keep their hands off the market and let the market do what it will and complain about the left-wing interfering in the free market.
You're calling missing by a few tenths of a degree "not even close"? We're experiencing possibly the lowest solar activity in hundreds of years and the temperatures are higher than we've seen in hundreds of years. It seems that something other than the sun is causing warming somehow. Hmmm... I wonder what it could be?
A little bit of warming may be good, but there's widespread agreement that we want to avoid a warming of over 2 degrees Celsius due to the negative consequences. It now looks as though we won't even be able to meet that modest goal.
Our models can been getting better and more accurate. But even the very basic model Arrhenius used was fairly accurate. He estimated a climate sensitivity of 4 to 5 degrees C, and our current estimate is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. What about these models do you think has been "disproved time and again"? They've only been confirmed, because the warming Arrhenius predicted has now been observed.
Running out of fossil fuels certainly is a real issue. We need to find alternative sources of energy because fossil fuels will run out some day. By developing the technologies now, we can drive the price down so it'll be easy to switch over to these sources long before fossil fuel costs skyrocket. And even dealing with one foot sea level rise will cost trillions, so we're committed to spend the money one way or the other. The issue is not whether or not to deal with climate change and develop alternative energy sources. We need to do both anyway. Let's spend money on the real issues rather than stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist this fiscal quarter.
The sea ice extent is the surface area of ice that is floating in the sea. Unfortunately, there is more ice floating in the sea because it's calving off the land. The total volume or mass of ice in the Antarctic is decreasing.
The composition of Earth's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, but the composition of the Earth is entirely different.
I agree that correlation is not causation, but greenhouse gases do cause warming, and the increase in greenhouse gases is due to human activity. That is causation.
Now we just need to convince the Arctic ice, Antarctic ice, and Greenland ice sheet to stop their damn melting. Please do tell them about the fraudulent data they're using.
No one is proposing hamstringing human civilization that I can see. We're talking about moving into the 21st century by shifting to energy production that is based on sources that will last far longer than fossil fuels will last. By reducing the amount of warming and ocean acidification, we're helping ensure future economic prosperity. I suppose change is just scary to some people.
Arrhenius predicted global warming over 100 years ago, because carbon dioxide is emitted by burning fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means increasing it will cause warming. Please do explain how this logic is flawed.
Also, no one is proposing we move back to caves. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions means getting power from sources such as the sun, and improving energy efficiency. It means moving into the high-tech 21st century, not back to low-tech times. It's what we need to do anyway, because no matter how much we'd like them to, fossil fuels will run out some day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
I don't think anyone is proposing putting this idea in an introductory science textbook or discussing the idea seriously in a science classroom.
The big bang doesn't explain where the universe came from any more than evolution explains how life started. Here's a video that explains the big bang (really the everywhere stretch).
The hostility towards creationism has to do with the idea that "this book says it, so it must be true!" In these experiments, we'd be looking for evidence that the universe was created, not just taking a book's word for it. I grant you that the universe could have been created 6000 years ago by some kind of supernatural entity. Just show me the evidence for it.
Why do you say astrology can't be tested? I have heard of scientific tests of astrology, and I think they all show that the forecasts do no better than chance. I found a segment from Carl Sagan's Cosmos about the topic.
What about Verilog?
I did a small project in Simulink (part of MATLAB) which uses graphical-based programming. It was also quite tedious. Writing text files seems so much easier to me. I wish all system administration was based on simply editing text files... if something wasn't working I could just look at the code and see what is wrong, rather than typing obscure queries to try to determine the current settings.
Yo mamma's
Yeah, all those lousy research scientists are just in it for the big money and don't produce anything useful.
I'm not using beta and I got 15 mod points yesterday. I'm using them sparingly, generally not modding down the complaints. It'll all blow over soon enough.