As you may expect, making climate models more accurate is a big topic of climate research these days. You can read about the basics of climate models at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
There are very few popular sites that are too slow, because web developers do not like to make slow sites. If a web developer does make a slow site, it doesn't become popular because users are too impatient and go to faster ones.
That's really the whole point of the recent focus on JavaScript performance. Web developers want to make complex sites to support the features the users want, but they cannot because all those features make the sites too slow. Google especially wants to develop a web-based Office-killer suite. That's why they developed Chrome with a very fast JavaScript engine, minimal chrome to make web apps more like local apps, and put each tab in a separate process so you can kill those memory- and CPU-hungry sites when you need to.
CO2 does help the plants, but it takes hundreds of years for plants to use the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It's just too slow of a process for dealing with excess CO2 levels. If it weren't so slow, we wouldn't be having the problem of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere now.
Hydrogen is not an energy source. To get hydrogen gas, you need to supply energy to a chemical reaction that generates hydrogen gas. Hydrogen is therefore a means of energy transport, such as electricity.
Coal would be far cleaner than nuclear if we could contain all the wastes. If the sequestered CO2 leaked out over tens of thousands of years, it would be barely noticeable. If the nuclear waste leaked out over tens of thousands of years, it could render portions of the Earth uninhabitable. Even a tiny bit of nuclear waste leaking after 100 years could be a major disaster.
The major unsolved problem with coal is that it will run out relatively soon. We need to keep working on alternative energy sources so we'll have energy when the fossil fuels run out.
Don't ask me to explain it. I'm merely repeating what astronomers have said, which clarifies why it's considered rounded by gravity and yet also cigar-shaped.
Haumea is cigar-shaped because it is rounded by gravity and stretched by rotation. That is different from being a rigid, irregularly shaped object that resembles a cigar.
Re:What brand of beer?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
I would guess the beer that once claimed would "refresh the parts other beers cannot reach" because of the "sabotage" in the other collider.
The reason you defrag a hard disk is because the time to read a file is much less if the drive doesn't have to a random-access seek while reading the file. SSDs have fast performance whether they need to seek randomly or not, so why would there be a need to defrag an SSD disk? I would think it would only wear out the drive faster.
What "bad science" behind the CO2-based warming model? What the climate scientists do is to generate computer models of the planet and see what those models predict. The models all predict that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet. Furthermore, it seems that most of the warming has been due to carbon dioxide. To attempt to refute their science, you seem to be want to use what has happened in the past to predict what will happen in the future. You cannot do that in this case because this is the first time in history that humans have put so much CO2 into the atmosphere. It is necessarily different from what has happened in the past. That's the point of what global warming is.
Perhaps warmer periods are wetter and more fertile overall. The problem is that now we have 6 billion people on the planet need fresh water year-round. The climate models I've seen have shown that droughts will be caused in several areas of the world.
There's another example of your faulty reasoning. You somehow assume that because I have not been able to find them, that I am not looking. I know I am looking, so I have another hypothesis: They do not exist.
Some of the evidence that has been used to support anthropogenic global warming is flawed. That does not mean all evidence for global warming is gone. In fact, the best evidence is still there. Therefore, your claim that this shows that other theories are more likely to explain global warming is flawed.
Not everyone agrees that most of the global warming has been due to carbon dioxide. But everyone (and I'm talking about scientists, not deniers who completely contradict every graph of global temperatures) agree that temperatures are rising. Everyone agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and all things equal, the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the warmer it will get. At least I've never seen even a denier try to deny that basic fact.
I get my science directly from the scientists. I still have yet to see one who doubts anthropogenic global warming. I have done searches on Google. Perhaps you could point us to those links again, because we cannot find them.
I've spent many hours going over the research on global warming. Everything suggests that most of the warming is due to the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In a short Google search, I found blog posts that discredit anthropogenic global warming. In the posts I've read, there are always serious flaws in the arguments they use. I'm not being lazy. I just don't see climate scientists who say global warming is not man-made. Anywhere.
I've been watching lectures of global warming by scientists on The Research Channel and UCTV, and not one of them has expressed serious doubt that global warming is man-made. They express alarm that the media continues to claim that there is still serious scientific debate about what the cause of global warming is.
Your first argument is a flawed one I have encountered before. Whatever the cause of higher temperatures was in the past, it does not mean that the cause of today's higher temperatures is not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Everyone agrees that the cause of increased carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere is human burning of fossil fuels and forests, and everyone agrees that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will raise temperatures, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Also, in the past, the Earth's temperature depended most on small forcings such as solar output and changes in the Earth's orbit. Today, the increased carbon dioxide causes a larger forcing, so much so that we will not have another ice age with so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, unless perhaps volcanoes, nuclear war, or a comet or asteroid collision kicks up so much particulate matter that too much sun gets blocked.
I don't see any papers making the claims that you're referring to. I see some blog posts. You can look up the results of Peter Norvig's experiment to see the claims of scientific papers, which do not disagree that global warming is due to carbon dioxide.
Huh? What prediction of evolutionary theory has been falsified? My understanding is that it is a theory precisely because it has failed to have been falsified.
Which theories are "a lot more likely" to account for global warming than increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The last I heard, most of the warming of the past 50 years is most likely due to the increases in carbon dioxide, although some of the warming is likely due to increased solar output.
Slashdot Mirror
As you may expect, making climate models more accurate is a big topic of climate research these days. You can read about the basics of climate models at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
A converter box won't do any good for the houses that do not receive a strong enough digital signal. RTFA
Uh, because Microsoft is a monopoly and Google and Apple are not?
For the next generation webapps that web developers haven't been able to write because JavaScript has been too slow until recently.
There are very few popular sites that are too slow, because web developers do not like to make slow sites. If a web developer does make a slow site, it doesn't become popular because users are too impatient and go to faster ones.
That's really the whole point of the recent focus on JavaScript performance. Web developers want to make complex sites to support the features the users want, but they cannot because all those features make the sites too slow. Google especially wants to develop a web-based Office-killer suite. That's why they developed Chrome with a very fast JavaScript engine, minimal chrome to make web apps more like local apps, and put each tab in a separate process so you can kill those memory- and CPU-hungry sites when you need to.
CO2 does help the plants, but it takes hundreds of years for plants to use the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. It's just too slow of a process for dealing with excess CO2 levels. If it weren't so slow, we wouldn't be having the problem of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere now.
Hydrogen is not an energy source. To get hydrogen gas, you need to supply energy to a chemical reaction that generates hydrogen gas. Hydrogen is therefore a means of energy transport, such as electricity.
As for fusion research, it has not stopped.
That's why it's called clean coal instead of renewable coal.
Coal would be far cleaner than nuclear if we could contain all the wastes. If the sequestered CO2 leaked out over tens of thousands of years, it would be barely noticeable. If the nuclear waste leaked out over tens of thousands of years, it could render portions of the Earth uninhabitable. Even a tiny bit of nuclear waste leaking after 100 years could be a major disaster.
The major unsolved problem with coal is that it will run out relatively soon. We need to keep working on alternative energy sources so we'll have energy when the fossil fuels run out.
You must be new here.
Don't ask me to explain it. I'm merely repeating what astronomers have said, which clarifies why it's considered rounded by gravity and yet also cigar-shaped.
Haumea is cigar-shaped because it is rounded by gravity and stretched by rotation. That is different from being a rigid, irregularly shaped object that resembles a cigar.
I would guess the beer that once claimed would "refresh the parts other beers cannot reach" because of the "sabotage" in the other collider.
The reason you defrag a hard disk is because the time to read a file is much less if the drive doesn't have to a random-access seek while reading the file. SSDs have fast performance whether they need to seek randomly or not, so why would there be a need to defrag an SSD disk? I would think it would only wear out the drive faster.
What "bad science" behind the CO2-based warming model? What the climate scientists do is to generate computer models of the planet and see what those models predict. The models all predict that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the planet. Furthermore, it seems that most of the warming has been due to carbon dioxide. To attempt to refute their science, you seem to be want to use what has happened in the past to predict what will happen in the future. You cannot do that in this case because this is the first time in history that humans have put so much CO2 into the atmosphere. It is necessarily different from what has happened in the past. That's the point of what global warming is.
Perhaps warmer periods are wetter and more fertile overall. The problem is that now we have 6 billion people on the planet need fresh water year-round. The climate models I've seen have shown that droughts will be caused in several areas of the world.
There's another example of your faulty reasoning. You somehow assume that because I have not been able to find them, that I am not looking. I know I am looking, so I have another hypothesis: They do not exist.
What do you mean by "biased sources"? I'm listening to lectures by climate scientists. How are they biased?
Some of the evidence that has been used to support anthropogenic global warming is flawed. That does not mean all evidence for global warming is gone. In fact, the best evidence is still there. Therefore, your claim that this shows that other theories are more likely to explain global warming is flawed.
Not everyone agrees that most of the global warming has been due to carbon dioxide. But everyone (and I'm talking about scientists, not deniers who completely contradict every graph of global temperatures) agree that temperatures are rising. Everyone agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and all things equal, the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the warmer it will get. At least I've never seen even a denier try to deny that basic fact.
I get my science directly from the scientists. I still have yet to see one who doubts anthropogenic global warming. I have done searches on Google. Perhaps you could point us to those links again, because we cannot find them.
I've spent many hours going over the research on global warming. Everything suggests that most of the warming is due to the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In a short Google search, I found blog posts that discredit anthropogenic global warming. In the posts I've read, there are always serious flaws in the arguments they use. I'm not being lazy. I just don't see climate scientists who say global warming is not man-made. Anywhere.
I've been watching lectures of global warming by scientists on The Research Channel and UCTV, and not one of them has expressed serious doubt that global warming is man-made. They express alarm that the media continues to claim that there is still serious scientific debate about what the cause of global warming is.
I looked back at several recent Slashdot articles on global warming, but could not find one of your posts. Perhaps you could post those links again.
Your first argument is a flawed one I have encountered before. Whatever the cause of higher temperatures was in the past, it does not mean that the cause of today's higher temperatures is not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Everyone agrees that the cause of increased carbon dioxide in today's atmosphere is human burning of fossil fuels and forests, and everyone agrees that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will raise temperatures, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Also, in the past, the Earth's temperature depended most on small forcings such as solar output and changes in the Earth's orbit. Today, the increased carbon dioxide causes a larger forcing, so much so that we will not have another ice age with so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, unless perhaps volcanoes, nuclear war, or a comet or asteroid collision kicks up so much particulate matter that too much sun gets blocked.
I don't see any papers making the claims that you're referring to. I see some blog posts. You can look up the results of Peter Norvig's experiment to see the claims of scientific papers, which do not disagree that global warming is due to carbon dioxide.
Huh? What prediction of evolutionary theory has been falsified? My understanding is that it is a theory precisely because it has failed to have been falsified.
Which theories are "a lot more likely" to account for global warming than increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The last I heard, most of the warming of the past 50 years is most likely due to the increases in carbon dioxide, although some of the warming is likely due to increased solar output.