I haven't seen anyone say that we've already raised the temperature several degrees. The latest I've seen is just over 1 degree Celsius. We have in fact observed this temperature increase, and cannot find any reason for it other than increased greenhouse gasses.
1. All causations involve correlations. Carbon dioxide certainly is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses do cause warming, so certainly an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause warming. If it isn't the carbon dioxide causing the warming, what is it?
Your other points seem to be completely nonsensical. Do you have evidence that the Earth isn't warming, or that the warming is due to something other than carbon dioxide, or an explanation as to why the warming due to carbon dioxide is not as great as we'd predict?
That also shows nothing about the global temperature trend. If you want to focus on small geographic areas, we can look at the trend in Arctic ice, which is clearly melting, and the trend in Antarctic ice, which is also clearly melting. You're showing only two cherry picked images from one specific location, not the overall trend in that location, and certainly not a global trend.
I don't see any data there from which I can conclude anything about the overall temperature trend of the Earth. Every piece of data I've seen shows warming. A climate skeptic analyzed temperature data recently and came to the same conclusion. Even though fellow skeptic Anthony Watts was in favor of this analysis, his immediately dismissed his results as soon as they showed warming. If you have data that shows something different than warming, let's see it.
The data have always showed warming due to burning fossil fuels, ever since Arrhenius predicted it over 100 years ago. The impending ice age approaching was hypothesized by researchers doing exactly what you're doing -- instead of looking at the global temperature trend looking at small geographical areas. Clearly global temperatures are rising. There isn't a "scare campaign" that I can see, just predictions based on a scientific hypothesis, and observations that match those predictions. The problem with rising sea levels is that hundreds of millions of people will have to relocate, abandoning trillions of dollars of infrastructure. Solar power can be used with energy storage systems. Try reading some research on the areas you're discussing instead of spreading misinformation like your post does.
I've never heard anyone say "what we do to the planet is the only thing that affects weather and climate". That is not what the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming states. It states that in addition to all the natural effects on climate, humans can raise the temperature of the Earth several degrees above where they would naturally be if they hadn't burnt billions of tons of fossil fuels. Humans' impact of climate is dwarfed by natural effects, but that doesn't mean we can't affect the climate. You're employing a false dichotomy.
That's an interesting analogy, but it fails on many different levels. There's not a single entity asking for money to fix the problem. We do observe the warming predicted by climate researchers. If you can show that the predicted warming is not happening, you might have something.
Avalanches have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, trigger avalanches so they happen when people aren't around so people don't get hurt. Diseases have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, develop vaccines and treatments to minimize human suffering. Just because we can't fully control nature doesn't mean we can't influence it.
So any statement made by any researcher involved with the UN is essentially the same as an official statement by the UN? Furthermore, if I can show that any of these statements by any researchers turns out the be wrong, the entire field of study and research institution they're involved with is called into question? Using that logic, I can call into question any aspect of anything that's studied and any research institution.
What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks?
More money for Microsoft from people who upgrade. This is how MS makes money from IE -- people need to upgrade Windows to get the new version of IE. The other major browsers all run on Windows and Mac, and most run on Linux and other operating systems as well.
The xxx sites are already too raunchy. We need a top level domain that has a more neutral name for non-raunchy adult material. IANA, please make a.nc17 TLD!
No. The more energy efficient a product is, the higher the ratio of energy used to manufacture it to the energy used to run it. This holds even if it takes the same amount of energy to make the more efficient product. It even holds if it takes 10% less energy to make a 20% more efficient product. Most products use far more energy over their lifetimes than it took to produce them. A one-dollar light bulb can consume $30 of electricity, for example. Even if it takes five times more energy to make a fluorescent light bulb, it can't take more than $5 of electricity to make, but it can save over $20 dollars of electricity compared to an incandescent because it uses one quarter the amount of energy to produce the same amount of light.
A 100 mile by 100 mile solar power plant would provide the power needed by all of the United States. Once constructed, it would need no continual refueling by mining or drilling materials such as coal, oil, or fissionable material. It would generate nearly no waste products. The source of power would never run out as long as the Earth is habitable. I don't think it would have a noticeable impact on the weather; if you can find some research that suggests it might I would be interested in seeing it. The real problems are the cost it would take to construct the plant, and the problems of storing and distributing the power once collected. The benefit to the system is the amazing low amount of resources it would consume compared to other methods of generating power.
Geothermal and hydroelectric can produce at most a small fraction of the power we use. Fission burns fuel, and we have only a limited supply that may last a few hundred years. I'm not sure how much of our power we can get from wind and tides, but there's much more than enough direct solar energy, and it never runs out.
Solar panels do collect enough energy to pay themselves off. There would be no reason to use them when other energy sources are available if they didn't. They're also becoming cheaper to produce and more efficient all the time. It will take a long time before we can use them for most of our energy needs, but it's getting there. Fusion, on the other hand, may never become practical for generating energy.
Not much energy goes into making a solar panel. Solar panel prices have been dropping dramatically over the past decades, and that would not be possible if they consumed lots of energy during manufacture because energy prices have gone up during that time. Currently, solar panels cost on the order of $1 per watt of power they can generate. Consuming one watt of electricity for a year costs on the order of $1. If the solar panel produces maximum power for an average of eight hours per day, it can generate at least as much energy as it uses during manufacture in only three years of use, even if all of the cost of the solar panel were the energy used to produce it. The claims I've seen that solar panels take more energy to produce than they generate during their lifetime are way, way off.
I just calculated how much time a wind turbine system would pay itself off in my area, and I found it would pay for itself in ten years. Again, if it's paying for itself, it must be generating more energy than it took to produce it, because it would be cheaper to just buy the energy directly rather than indirectly purchase more energy by purchasing the turbine system.
You think the argument is sophisticated? I think it's common sense that should be readily apparent to everyone. I think the only reason it isn't is because people like to rationalize their copying, so cognitive dissonance prevents them from easily seeing what harm is does to the people who create the content. Put simply, it's emotionally disturbing to think that you're ripping someone off, so it's hard to admit that you're doing it. Isn't it obvious that the person who does the work should be compensated for it, even if once the work is done it costs nothing or next to nothing to make extra copies?
No, the extra copy doesn't cost anything. But people who sell the copies need to sell many copies to compensate for the cost of making the first copy. If you spend two years writing a book, suppose you need to make $100,000 to make it worth your while. If you sell 1000 copies of your book and make $10 apiece, that's only $10,000. If you find out that 20,000 people make copies of the books on the basis that "no one was aggressed against", then doesn't it stand to reason that you're out $200,000? Making free copies does deprive the creator of the work, because they don't get the money for the copy. That's called copyright infringement, and that's why we have copyright laws... so creators of work can be fairly compensated for their work.
Copying another's actions is something else entirely. If someone else picks coconuts and sells them, and you also pick coconuts and sell them, you're simply competing fairly and equally. If someone else writes a book and sells it, and you get it for free and give it to others for free, that's not competing fairly and equally. It took you less work to copy the book than it did for the author to write it, so you need little or no compensation for your meager effort.
Put another way, if you wrote for a living and depended on that income to pay the mortgage and feed the kids, would you think it's intuitively and naturally moral for others to get and share your book without compensating you for your work?
A new vulnerability can be found by white hats and reported to the company, which is not a 0-day. A new vulnerability can be found by black hats and exploited before the company knows about it. That's a 0-day, and it's problematic because they company wasn't able to attempt to mitigate or fix the problem before it was exploited. Not all new vulnerabilities are 0-days; probably most are not. It's not important whether a vulnerability was found the first day the software was released or not. The important thing is how long it takes the company to respond. If they had no knowledge of the vulnerability, it's a worst case scenario.
Yes, Adobe will patch a vulnerability that was used in a 0-day attack. Or "Adobe To Patch Flash 0-day" for short.
I suppose when I ask if you know what time it is you'll say "Yes", then give me a lecture on how my question was improperly phrased if I'm not satisfied with your answer.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen anyone say that we've already raised the temperature several degrees. The latest I've seen is just over 1 degree Celsius. We have in fact observed this temperature increase, and cannot find any reason for it other than increased greenhouse gasses.
1. All causations involve correlations. Carbon dioxide certainly is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses do cause warming, so certainly an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause warming. If it isn't the carbon dioxide causing the warming, what is it? Your other points seem to be completely nonsensical. Do you have evidence that the Earth isn't warming, or that the warming is due to something other than carbon dioxide, or an explanation as to why the warming due to carbon dioxide is not as great as we'd predict?
That also shows nothing about the global temperature trend. If you want to focus on small geographic areas, we can look at the trend in Arctic ice, which is clearly melting, and the trend in Antarctic ice, which is also clearly melting. You're showing only two cherry picked images from one specific location, not the overall trend in that location, and certainly not a global trend.
No, it's the continued observations of the warming that has been predicted for over 100 years. If we do not see the predicted warning, then feel free to say the researchers were wrong.
I don't see any data there from which I can conclude anything about the overall temperature trend of the Earth. Every piece of data I've seen shows warming. A climate skeptic analyzed temperature data recently and came to the same conclusion. Even though fellow skeptic Anthony Watts was in favor of this analysis, his immediately dismissed his results as soon as they showed warming. If you have data that shows something different than warming, let's see it.
The data have always showed warming due to burning fossil fuels, ever since Arrhenius predicted it over 100 years ago. The impending ice age approaching was hypothesized by researchers doing exactly what you're doing -- instead of looking at the global temperature trend looking at small geographical areas. Clearly global temperatures are rising. There isn't a "scare campaign" that I can see, just predictions based on a scientific hypothesis, and observations that match those predictions. The problem with rising sea levels is that hundreds of millions of people will have to relocate, abandoning trillions of dollars of infrastructure. Solar power can be used with energy storage systems. Try reading some research on the areas you're discussing instead of spreading misinformation like your post does.
I've never heard anyone say "what we do to the planet is the only thing that affects weather and climate". That is not what the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming states. It states that in addition to all the natural effects on climate, humans can raise the temperature of the Earth several degrees above where they would naturally be if they hadn't burnt billions of tons of fossil fuels. Humans' impact of climate is dwarfed by natural effects, but that doesn't mean we can't affect the climate. You're employing a false dichotomy.
That's an interesting analogy, but it fails on many different levels. There's not a single entity asking for money to fix the problem. We do observe the warming predicted by climate researchers. If you can show that the predicted warming is not happening, you might have something.
Avalanches have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, trigger avalanches so they happen when people aren't around so people don't get hurt. Diseases have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, develop vaccines and treatments to minimize human suffering. Just because we can't fully control nature doesn't mean we can't influence it.
So any statement made by any researcher involved with the UN is essentially the same as an official statement by the UN? Furthermore, if I can show that any of these statements by any researchers turns out the be wrong, the entire field of study and research institution they're involved with is called into question? Using that logic, I can call into question any aspect of anything that's studied and any research institution.
What could there possibly be in Windows 7 that Vista lacks?
More money for Microsoft from people who upgrade. This is how MS makes money from IE -- people need to upgrade Windows to get the new version of IE. The other major browsers all run on Windows and Mac, and most run on Linux and other operating systems as well.
The xxx sites are already too raunchy. We need a top level domain that has a more neutral name for non-raunchy adult material. IANA, please make a .nc17 TLD!
No. The more energy efficient a product is, the higher the ratio of energy used to manufacture it to the energy used to run it. This holds even if it takes the same amount of energy to make the more efficient product. It even holds if it takes 10% less energy to make a 20% more efficient product. Most products use far more energy over their lifetimes than it took to produce them. A one-dollar light bulb can consume $30 of electricity, for example. Even if it takes five times more energy to make a fluorescent light bulb, it can't take more than $5 of electricity to make, but it can save over $20 dollars of electricity compared to an incandescent because it uses one quarter the amount of energy to produce the same amount of light.
A 100 mile by 100 mile solar power plant would provide the power needed by all of the United States. Once constructed, it would need no continual refueling by mining or drilling materials such as coal, oil, or fissionable material. It would generate nearly no waste products. The source of power would never run out as long as the Earth is habitable. I don't think it would have a noticeable impact on the weather; if you can find some research that suggests it might I would be interested in seeing it. The real problems are the cost it would take to construct the plant, and the problems of storing and distributing the power once collected. The benefit to the system is the amazing low amount of resources it would consume compared to other methods of generating power.
Geothermal and hydroelectric can produce at most a small fraction of the power we use. Fission burns fuel, and we have only a limited supply that may last a few hundred years. I'm not sure how much of our power we can get from wind and tides, but there's much more than enough direct solar energy, and it never runs out.
Solar panels do collect enough energy to pay themselves off. There would be no reason to use them when other energy sources are available if they didn't. They're also becoming cheaper to produce and more efficient all the time. It will take a long time before we can use them for most of our energy needs, but it's getting there. Fusion, on the other hand, may never become practical for generating energy.
Not much energy goes into making a solar panel. Solar panel prices have been dropping dramatically over the past decades, and that would not be possible if they consumed lots of energy during manufacture because energy prices have gone up during that time. Currently, solar panels cost on the order of $1 per watt of power they can generate. Consuming one watt of electricity for a year costs on the order of $1. If the solar panel produces maximum power for an average of eight hours per day, it can generate at least as much energy as it uses during manufacture in only three years of use, even if all of the cost of the solar panel were the energy used to produce it. The claims I've seen that solar panels take more energy to produce than they generate during their lifetime are way, way off.
I just calculated how much time a wind turbine system would pay itself off in my area, and I found it would pay for itself in ten years. Again, if it's paying for itself, it must be generating more energy than it took to produce it, because it would be cheaper to just buy the energy directly rather than indirectly purchase more energy by purchasing the turbine system.
You think the argument is sophisticated? I think it's common sense that should be readily apparent to everyone. I think the only reason it isn't is because people like to rationalize their copying, so cognitive dissonance prevents them from easily seeing what harm is does to the people who create the content. Put simply, it's emotionally disturbing to think that you're ripping someone off, so it's hard to admit that you're doing it. Isn't it obvious that the person who does the work should be compensated for it, even if once the work is done it costs nothing or next to nothing to make extra copies?
No, the extra copy doesn't cost anything. But people who sell the copies need to sell many copies to compensate for the cost of making the first copy. If you spend two years writing a book, suppose you need to make $100,000 to make it worth your while. If you sell 1000 copies of your book and make $10 apiece, that's only $10,000. If you find out that 20,000 people make copies of the books on the basis that "no one was aggressed against", then doesn't it stand to reason that you're out $200,000? Making free copies does deprive the creator of the work, because they don't get the money for the copy. That's called copyright infringement, and that's why we have copyright laws... so creators of work can be fairly compensated for their work.
Copying another's actions is something else entirely. If someone else picks coconuts and sells them, and you also pick coconuts and sell them, you're simply competing fairly and equally. If someone else writes a book and sells it, and you get it for free and give it to others for free, that's not competing fairly and equally. It took you less work to copy the book than it did for the author to write it, so you need little or no compensation for your meager effort.
Put another way, if you wrote for a living and depended on that income to pay the mortgage and feed the kids, would you think it's intuitively and naturally moral for others to get and share your book without compensating you for your work?
It's intuitively and naturally moral to obtain copies of works without compensating the person who created the work? How so?
The danger of being sued.
A new vulnerability can be found by white hats and reported to the company, which is not a 0-day. A new vulnerability can be found by black hats and exploited before the company knows about it. That's a 0-day, and it's problematic because they company wasn't able to attempt to mitigate or fix the problem before it was exploited. Not all new vulnerabilities are 0-days; probably most are not. It's not important whether a vulnerability was found the first day the software was released or not. The important thing is how long it takes the company to respond. If they had no knowledge of the vulnerability, it's a worst case scenario.
Yes, Adobe will patch a vulnerability that was used in a 0-day attack. Or "Adobe To Patch Flash 0-day" for short.
I suppose when I ask if you know what time it is you'll say "Yes", then give me a lecture on how my question was improperly phrased if I'm not satisfied with your answer.
If looks to me like under Bush revenues went down and spending went up. It didn't seem to be a problem for Republicans until Obama took office.