Absolutely not. But you can see that there are people who deny relativity. Can't you see the difference between scientists who perform experiments to check relativity to these folks who simply deny the evidence?
In this graph from NOAA you can see there's been far more than 0.2 degrees warming since 1940. It looks to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1940. In fact, it's warmed 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1970.
I'm only posting these comments to clear up misinformation. If people wouldn't post misinformation, there would be no need for me to clear it up, would there?
Don't you see how ironic is it that this whole thread started with someone urging everyone to stop talking about climate change, and that in itself started a whole conversation about climate change? If you don't want to talk about it, just don't bring it up! Just don't look! Just don't look!
There's so much misinformation in your post it hurts. It's warmed 0.7 degrees Celsius in the past 134 years. It is currently warmer now than any time in the past 2000 years. In the past 17 years Earth has warmed by about 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. And there's no sign of cooling or even temperatures leveling off.
Well, it's really the rate of sea level rise that's the issue. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" over 10000 years is no problem. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" in the 2100s is a different matter entirely.
Cope, yes. Cope inexpensively, no. Coping with a significantly warmer climate will be expensive. There's evidence that we could spend some money now to reduce the warming, thereby reducing the total cost. Wouldn't reducing the total cost mean that it makes economic sense to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
No, melting of ice will cause the temperature rise to be slower than it would otherwise be. What I said, and read this carefully, is that if the temperature remained stable, that the rate of ice melting would decrease until the amount of ice reaches a new stable equilibrium. The fact that the rate of ice melt is accelerating is evidence that the temperature is still increasing. And, of course, we are directly observing this temperature increase as well. It's not that hard to understand, is it? You know, global warming, been in all the papers and on the news for years?
Which article? The OSS article says the data confirms three factors, the first of which is "Antarctica is warming". That makes sense, if the globe is warming then that will cause Antarctica to warm.
That's the surface area of ice, not the amount of ice, which is measured by volume or mass. If you look at the mass of ice in the Antarctic, you can see it's been melting for decades at an accelerating rate. Funny how the real facts get in the way of a good misinformation campaign.
If the temperature were stable, I would expect the amount of ice to decrease as it reaches a new equilibrium. But we've seen the temperature rise and the ice melt at an accelerating rate. Most of the increased heat is going into the oceans.
Just kidding... the Antarctic ice has been melting for decades. More precisely, the mass of the old, thick land ice is decreasing due to rising temperatures, but the surface area of the short-lived, thin sea ice has been increasing, partly due to decreased salinity in the Southern Ocean because the land ice is melting. Overall, the Antarctic has been losing ice at an accelerating rate as temperatures have continued to increase.
No, global cooling did not come first. Arrhenius predicted warming due to humans burning fossil fuels in the 1800s. The global cooling fad was pushed by a small minority of climatologists for a very short time. There was never any consensus on that idea.
If the science behind global warming is so fake, why don't you expose it and convince everyone it's fake? I see people thinking they're doing that all the time, but I haven't seen one good argument to suggest that our carbon dioxide emissions are not causing significant warming.
No, it does not. Most climatologists predicted warming, even at the peak of "global cooling". Only a few climatologists predicted cooling, and they gave lots of caveats about their predictions. I don't see anything in there about "fear" at all. You're seeing what you want to see.
Correlation is not causation. I don't see any claim that the systems are secure because they're obsolete. I think the fact that they use technology from many decades ago means that they are simple, and the fact that they are simple means it was easy to make them secure and show that they are secure today. I think we could just as easily make a secure system today if we use modern technology, as long as we keep everything very simple. It's slapping on layer after layer of general purpose hardware and code that leads to many security problems.
This was what was so great about Lost. There were so many mysteries, yet every time a mystery was solved, it just raised yet more questions. Many viewers still didn't get it by the time the finale was long over. A game where you're always in medias res and constantly being surprised by new revelations could be even more fantastic! Come to think of it, that's what makes life so cool.
Earth has been impacted by asteroids in the past, so there's nothing to worry about. It's just a natural phenomenon. Besides, the people saying we should be looking for asteroids are just greedy for grant money. If it turns out the be a real threat, I'm sure the technology to deal with it will magically appear -- with the economy the way it is we can't afford nonessential projects now.
Remember how silly these arguments sound when applied to other potential problems.
According to the story yesterday, we should triple the energy we get from renewables and nuclear. I don't think that's going to take the whole world back to the stone age. It sounds like developing more advanced technology and engineering to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely not. But you can see that there are people who deny relativity. Can't you see the difference between scientists who perform experiments to check relativity to these folks who simply deny the evidence?
In this graph from NOAA you can see there's been far more than 0.2 degrees warming since 1940. It looks to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius since 1940. In fact, it's warmed 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1970.
I'm only posting these comments to clear up misinformation. If people wouldn't post misinformation, there would be no need for me to clear it up, would there?
Don't you see how ironic is it that this whole thread started with someone urging everyone to stop talking about climate change, and that in itself started a whole conversation about climate change? If you don't want to talk about it, just don't bring it up! Just don't look! Just don't look!
There's so much misinformation in your post it hurts. It's warmed 0.7 degrees Celsius in the past 134 years. It is currently warmer now than any time in the past 2000 years. In the past 17 years Earth has warmed by about 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade. And there's no sign of cooling or even temperatures leveling off.
I think you should also read this article on the cost of global warming. It's costing us now, and will only cost us more as it warms.
The impact of warming on food yields is complex. The latest research suggests that food yields will decrease with a warming of 2 degrees Celsius.
Well, it's really the rate of sea level rise that's the issue. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" over 10000 years is no problem. Adding 4 to 12 feet to current sea levels "eventually" in the 2100s is a different matter entirely.
Then you may want to read this article, for example.
Cope, yes. Cope inexpensively, no. Coping with a significantly warmer climate will be expensive. There's evidence that we could spend some money now to reduce the warming, thereby reducing the total cost. Wouldn't reducing the total cost mean that it makes economic sense to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
No, melting of ice will cause the temperature rise to be slower than it would otherwise be. What I said, and read this carefully, is that if the temperature remained stable, that the rate of ice melting would decrease until the amount of ice reaches a new stable equilibrium. The fact that the rate of ice melt is accelerating is evidence that the temperature is still increasing. And, of course, we are directly observing this temperature increase as well. It's not that hard to understand, is it? You know, global warming, been in all the papers and on the news for years?
Which article? The OSS article says the data confirms three factors, the first of which is "Antarctica is warming". That makes sense, if the globe is warming then that will cause Antarctica to warm.
That's the surface area of ice, not the amount of ice, which is measured by volume or mass. If you look at the mass of ice in the Antarctic, you can see it's been melting for decades at an accelerating rate. Funny how the real facts get in the way of a good misinformation campaign.
I mean, if the temperature were stable, I would expect the rate of melting of ice to decrease.
If the temperature were stable, I would expect the amount of ice to decrease as it reaches a new equilibrium. But we've seen the temperature rise and the ice melt at an accelerating rate. Most of the increased heat is going into the oceans.
Fuckin A, dude! My stupid doctor was telling me to exercise and eat right, and I'm all, well, dying is inevitable, so fuck it!
Just kidding... the Antarctic ice has been melting for decades. More precisely, the mass of the old, thick land ice is decreasing due to rising temperatures, but the surface area of the short-lived, thin sea ice has been increasing, partly due to decreased salinity in the Southern Ocean because the land ice is melting. Overall, the Antarctic has been losing ice at an accelerating rate as temperatures have continued to increase.
No, global cooling did not come first. Arrhenius predicted warming due to humans burning fossil fuels in the 1800s. The global cooling fad was pushed by a small minority of climatologists for a very short time. There was never any consensus on that idea.
If the science behind global warming is so fake, why don't you expose it and convince everyone it's fake? I see people thinking they're doing that all the time, but I haven't seen one good argument to suggest that our carbon dioxide emissions are not causing significant warming.
No, it does not. Most climatologists predicted warming, even at the peak of "global cooling". Only a few climatologists predicted cooling, and they gave lots of caveats about their predictions. I don't see anything in there about "fear" at all. You're seeing what you want to see.
You should carefully read the section you linked to. I do not think it says what you think it says.
Correlation is not causation. I don't see any claim that the systems are secure because they're obsolete. I think the fact that they use technology from many decades ago means that they are simple, and the fact that they are simple means it was easy to make them secure and show that they are secure today. I think we could just as easily make a secure system today if we use modern technology, as long as we keep everything very simple. It's slapping on layer after layer of general purpose hardware and code that leads to many security problems.
This was what was so great about Lost. There were so many mysteries, yet every time a mystery was solved, it just raised yet more questions. Many viewers still didn't get it by the time the finale was long over. A game where you're always in medias res and constantly being surprised by new revelations could be even more fantastic! Come to think of it, that's what makes life so cool.
Earth has been impacted by asteroids in the past, so there's nothing to worry about. It's just a natural phenomenon. Besides, the people saying we should be looking for asteroids are just greedy for grant money. If it turns out the be a real threat, I'm sure the technology to deal with it will magically appear -- with the economy the way it is we can't afford nonessential projects now.
Remember how silly these arguments sound when applied to other potential problems.
According to the story yesterday, we should triple the energy we get from renewables and nuclear. I don't think that's going to take the whole world back to the stone age. It sounds like developing more advanced technology and engineering to me.
If you want to leave the Earth alone, why not just reduce the amount of fossil fuels we're burning?