We observe the warming. It's not being debated at all as far as I can tell. I can see people denying that it's happening (i.e. saying it isn't warming), despite umpteen graphs being posted that clearly show it happening. It seems to me that they are simply not looking at the graphs, or not willing to admit that they see the warming when they do see it. I suppose it upsets them too much to admit.
If we continue developing alternative energy sources sooner, they'll be cheaper than fossil fuels sooner, so the maximum price of energy will be minimized. That seems to be a desirable outcome to me. I think we should take steps to reduce energy use through more efficient lighting, transporation, and appliances and also continue to develop alternative energy sources, from a purely economic standpoint, even ignoring any effects from global warming, ocean acidification, and air pollution. It boggles the mind to think that so many people are opposed to it for some reason. I suppose that next quarter's fincances are all that matter to some people.
There's no reason to believe that the use of solar and wind power led to global warming because there's no mechanism to explain it. But carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions was predicted many decades before we observed it. Add to that the fact that no other plausible explanation for the warming has been found, and therefore our best current hypothesis is that the carbon dioixide emissions are causing the warming.
Do you have some other explanation for the observed warming that I haven't heard of?
The ocean and land graph also shows the same warming, as long as you do not neglect the data from before 1998. I see that you didn't look at it. Go take a look.
If you zoom that graph way out, you can no longer see the warming that is caused by carbon dioxide emissions that began about a century ago because it becomes too small to see. Yes, it's called cherry picking your data.
The two graphs use different sets of data. One shows BEST land-only surface temperature measurements, and ther other uses satellite data for land and ocean measurements. In both graphs, you can easily see the warming trend. The one you linked to even has trend lines that show the warming. Don't you see them? It seems that it is you that is still cherry picking data, by ignoring data from before the 1998 temperature spike caused by that year's El Nino.
Not to mention that no matter what, we'll have to stop using fossil fuels one day because they'll simply run out. We have to develop alternative energy sources if we want to continue our current lifestyle with billions of humans on the planet.
That's why predicting the weather is so hard. The atmosphere is a chaotic system where the slightest inaccuracy in measurement could cause large changes in a prediction several weeks away. It's the same for gas particles in a chamber.
But we can reliably measure the temperature and pressure of a gas, because those do not depend on the specific location of the particles. In a similar way, it's not hard to predict climate change decades in the future, even though it's hard to predict the weather two weeks in the future.
This is a common misconception. Celsius degrees can be used relatively. 20 degrees Celsius is 10 degrees Celsius colder than 30 degrees Celsius. Kelvin (note no plural and no degrees) is an absolute measurement. 1 Kelvin is 1 degree Celsius above absolute zero. 1 Kelvin cannot be a difference between two temperatures, as it's always one specific temperature.
No one is claiming that we should do something that kills people to combat warming. We should use energy more efficiently and get energy from sources other than burning fossil fuels (e.g. solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels) to cut carbon dioxide emissions. We can do that and also support more people on the planet.
I think misconceptions about what we plan to do to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions is the reason most people don't agree with cutting emissions... they think it means that they will have to do without or with less. We can have just as much energy or even more while still cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
I don't know where you're getting this information. I've seen more and more evidence for warming, and lots of stories indicating that the warming is happening even faster than predicted. In fact, this very story is about that our best guess for climate sensitivity is being adjusted upward, not downward as you claim. Additionally, more people believe that AGW is happening today than a few years ago. Could you post some information that backs up your claims?
Shaky grounds? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases cause warming. We are emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere. The warming caused by these emissions was predicted over 100 years ago. We are now observing that predicted warming. Which one of these is the least bit shaky?
I don't understand what you mean about no uncertainty. There is always some uncertainty in science. No measurement is ever exact, and science never proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And just last week many were arguing that Slashdot style moderation would prevent these kinds of comments in online newspaper articles. When people have an agenda to push and the mainstream media won't do it for them, they'll do it for themselves in the comments.
It doesn't seem that you know much about IP. The fomula for Coca-Cola is IP, and it is protected by trade secret. You can make up exactly the same formula, and the Coca-Cola company would not be able to stop you from selling the same product, because their formula is protected by trade secret. To allow inventions to become widely known, they can be protected by patent, which allow exclusive rights to an invention even though it is public knowledge. That's why patents exist -- to allow innovations to become public knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only is Antarctica losing ice each year, the ice loss is accelerating.
Oh, yes it is...
We observe the warming. It's not being debated at all as far as I can tell. I can see people denying that it's happening (i.e. saying it isn't warming), despite umpteen graphs being posted that clearly show it happening. It seems to me that they are simply not looking at the graphs, or not willing to admit that they see the warming when they do see it. I suppose it upsets them too much to admit.
Here's an article that shows that Antarctic ice is melting at an accelerating rate, in addition to the Arctic sea ice and ice sheets and glaciers worldwide.
If we continue developing alternative energy sources sooner, they'll be cheaper than fossil fuels sooner, so the maximum price of energy will be minimized. That seems to be a desirable outcome to me. I think we should take steps to reduce energy use through more efficient lighting, transporation, and appliances and also continue to develop alternative energy sources, from a purely economic standpoint, even ignoring any effects from global warming, ocean acidification, and air pollution. It boggles the mind to think that so many people are opposed to it for some reason. I suppose that next quarter's fincances are all that matter to some people.
There's no reason to believe that the use of solar and wind power led to global warming because there's no mechanism to explain it. But carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions was predicted many decades before we observed it. Add to that the fact that no other plausible explanation for the warming has been found, and therefore our best current hypothesis is that the carbon dioixide emissions are causing the warming.
Do you have some other explanation for the observed warming that I haven't heard of?
Continue developing them to the point they can replace fossil fuels, obviously.
The ocean and land graph also shows the same warming, as long as you do not neglect the data from before 1998. I see that you didn't look at it. Go take a look.
If you zoom that graph way out, you can no longer see the warming that is caused by carbon dioxide emissions that began about a century ago because it becomes too small to see. Yes, it's called cherry picking your data.
The two graphs use different sets of data. One shows BEST land-only surface temperature measurements, and ther other uses satellite data for land and ocean measurements. In both graphs, you can easily see the warming trend. The one you linked to even has trend lines that show the warming. Don't you see them? It seems that it is you that is still cherry picking data, by ignoring data from before the 1998 temperature spike caused by that year's El Nino.
Not to mention that no matter what, we'll have to stop using fossil fuels one day because they'll simply run out. We have to develop alternative energy sources if we want to continue our current lifestyle with billions of humans on the planet.
Here's a graph that shows how you're looking at things. It's called cherry picking your data.
That's why predicting the weather is so hard. The atmosphere is a chaotic system where the slightest inaccuracy in measurement could cause large changes in a prediction several weeks away. It's the same for gas particles in a chamber.
But we can reliably measure the temperature and pressure of a gas, because those do not depend on the specific location of the particles. In a similar way, it's not hard to predict climate change decades in the future, even though it's hard to predict the weather two weeks in the future.
This is a common misconception. Celsius degrees can be used relatively. 20 degrees Celsius is 10 degrees Celsius colder than 30 degrees Celsius. Kelvin (note no plural and no degrees) is an absolute measurement. 1 Kelvin is 1 degree Celsius above absolute zero. 1 Kelvin cannot be a difference between two temperatures, as it's always one specific temperature.
I think I actually hear crickets chirping.
No one is claiming that we should do something that kills people to combat warming. We should use energy more efficiently and get energy from sources other than burning fossil fuels (e.g. solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels) to cut carbon dioxide emissions. We can do that and also support more people on the planet.
I think misconceptions about what we plan to do to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions is the reason most people don't agree with cutting emissions... they think it means that they will have to do without or with less. We can have just as much energy or even more while still cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
I don't know where you're getting this information. I've seen more and more evidence for warming, and lots of stories indicating that the warming is happening even faster than predicted. In fact, this very story is about that our best guess for climate sensitivity is being adjusted upward, not downward as you claim. Additionally, more people believe that AGW is happening today than a few years ago. Could you post some information that backs up your claims?
Shaky grounds? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases cause warming. We are emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year into the atmosphere. The warming caused by these emissions was predicted over 100 years ago. We are now observing that predicted warming. Which one of these is the least bit shaky?
I don't understand what you mean about no uncertainty. There is always some uncertainty in science. No measurement is ever exact, and science never proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And just last week many were arguing that Slashdot style moderation would prevent these kinds of comments in online newspaper articles. When people have an agenda to push and the mainstream media won't do it for them, they'll do it for themselves in the comments.
Compatibility (more or less) with MATLAB would be the main one.
Do you mean "C'est la vie"?
Exactly. He claimed no exclusive ownership to his password. So he'll let me have it, rather than keeping it secret, as in a trade secret.
It doesn't seem that you know much about IP. The fomula for Coca-Cola is IP, and it is protected by trade secret. You can make up exactly the same formula, and the Coca-Cola company would not be able to stop you from selling the same product, because their formula is protected by trade secret. To allow inventions to become widely known, they can be protected by patent, which allow exclusive rights to an invention even though it is public knowledge. That's why patents exist -- to allow innovations to become public knowledge.
If you say so. You don't mind telling us your passwords then, huh? You don't have any exclusive rights to them, according to your own claim.
...and Zunes.