So do you have the resources to run the same computations that the thousands of scientists working independently around the world have, using that data?
Why not? If you did have the data - and there's no reason why you can't get it, as other posters have noted - what would you do with it? Would you even know what to do with it? If you do, then what the hell are you doing posting on slashdot rather than in serious journals where your thoughts about it might make a real difference?
Since you seem to be so confident that you could actually verify all this yourself, then maybe instead of whining about not having the data here, you should be doing real work trying to do so, and then posting results?
All you need to do to get the data is to ask. Of course there are literally terabytes of it.
All this focus on CO2 is distracting from real problems in places like India where they actually have sulphur in the air, which is 100% known to cause problems; it's not just some theoretical issue. Let's focus on real problems, and deal with global warming when we know what the actual problem is.
The sort of problem you are talking about tends to have more immediately measurable consequences, not least because those consequences are local - air pollution such as sulphur and other compounds generated from combustion have been known about for many decades and have been dealt with to some success - Los Angeles being an example. They also tend to have more local/regional immediate effects, although over the last couple decades we've been discovering just how far such pollution can travel.
Global warming is an entirely different problem. We KNOW it's happening; we have observed many of the anticipated (and unanticipated) side effects from it, such as increased glacier melting to loss of permafrost in areas that have been more or less static for many thousands of years, to many other observed effects. This is not "gospel" truth - it's simply true - globally, the atmosphere is warming.
Whether or not it's being caused by humans is really irrelevant - we're not going to just change our industries and technology in any short time span - but we do have to start preparing for what's going to happen. However, since we know that our civilization does produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases and that they likely are contributing to the problem, it's rather stupid to not try and tackle that problem as well, while we're working on energy efficiency, isn't it? In many ways it is exactly the same problem as any other pollution problem. Think about it.
No climate model can accurately predict anything if the inputs (to the atmosphere) are changing due to causes outside the model - such as industrial emissions (this is aimed at your comment "That is, show me a model where I can input a historical data set that terminates in 1900 and have it accurately predict, to a statistically significant degree, most of the climate happenings up through 2000.")
Neither can the models accurately predict climate change if there are sources of greenhouse gases (or, for that matter, cooling) that are unknown either in their existence or their extent at the time the model is constructed. (Such as volcanic eruptions, or increased methane outgassing such as is currently being recorded in many places, etc) NO MODEL CAN PREDICT ANYTHING THAT ISN'T ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MODEL. The scientists who do this for a living do understand this, and are constantly refining their models in order to try to include such effects as more data becomes available.
I was surprised that you didn't mention another potential effect on satellites due to warming - the expansion of the upper atmosphere (which can cause more degradation of LEO orbits). Did they not cover that in your classes? I recall reading more than a few articles about LEO satellites' lifetimes being downgraded over the last couple decades due to unanticipated thermal expansion of the atmosphere (not cyclical effects, but long term trends. I don't have any links, unfortunately.)
Isn't it more likely that your textbooks, curriculum and teacher simply weren't up to date with current theory or data? When I was in college that was a constant problem.
All that said, no, it's not likely that current climate models can accurately predict much past a decade or two - or even over a few years for short term changes; we simply don't have enough data, not yet. But that doesn't mean those same models can't predict trends; such as, more CO2 in such and such amounts will produce more warming, within a margin of error.
In any case, just because your classes did not happen to include any of the current theory, or up to date information on the models being used, does not mean that such information isn't out there. It's a shame you aren't still in those classes, because I'd bet your instructors would have been fascinated if you'd written a research paper based on more up to date information on climate research. You might even have gotten a footnote in a future textbook:)
Ah, so the real problem is too many levels of noise (laptop-rubberfeet-frame etc) Thanks:)
It's amazing what noise filtering software can do nowadays, but I don't have time to keep up with the field and couldn't hope to keep up with the math, so have to ask:)
The truth is that plenty of U.S. slashdotters who championed the success of moderate amounts of socialism in California and of healthcare and other social services in Europe are conveniently neglecting the reality that California is bankrupt and that all of the European countries are either bankrupt or soon to be.
Which may be true or not wrt Europe, I don't know enough to call you on that (and I doubt anyone does) but California's fiscal problems haven't been caused solely by overspending on health care.
But I will ask you: is it nationalized health care that is going to bankrupt them? Or is it just plain corruption and bad management of fiscal resources?
Citation, please?
In any case, I suspect that any government that doesn't ensure that it's citizens have access to affordable health care in our modern times will last very long. The technology to do so is here; it's access to it that's the problem. If that problem is not dealt with on a more global level, soon, then the western/first world countries will soon have a lot worse problems to deal with.
That not only are our elected representatives too ignorant, for the most part, to understand why this is a stupid idea; they are so arrogant that they won't even seek out opinions from the people who work in the industry, and know that there is not, and never will be, any such thing as a "unhackable" ID.
It's been said before, in many forms, by many people, and I've said it on this site more than once in the past, but I'll say it again (refined it since the last time)
No matter how smart you are, no matter how well you implement a piece of technology, you will always be defeated, if not by another human out of the seven billion available, then by teams of people working together." - old form was "No matter how smart you are, there is always somebody smarter."
I can't and won't claim credit for it, but it should be a basic natural law of sentience, dammit.
The ironic part is that some people will continue to believe it's possible. They'll call it rigged, or that he couldn't concentrate, or some such bullshit excuse.
Just like much of the other crap that's been spewed by modern snake oil salesmen. Including evangelists.
If I were an alien contact team on it's way here, and managed to translate that program (and many others) enough to get the gist of what was going on, I would change course and hit up the next system in my contact list.
Translating tv/languages is one thing, understanding that most of the inhabitants consider it silly nonsense*, takes a lot more work.
Next planetary system, please. We'll return to this one in a couple thousand years and see if they are still around.;-)
* Ok, some of the inhabitants...
SB
Atheism is not a religion. It is the ABSENCE of religious beliefs.
But won't disagree with RD not having an agenda - his agenda is to rid the world of silly superstitious nonsense. Seems to be a good thing, to me. However that is why I suggested his name somewhat tongue in cheek:)
As to communication - yes, it's very likely we won't be able to communicate with an alien race at all. But I doubt it will be because of any limitations on their part. More likely, ours.
SB
Doesn't help users with new computers that were built without opening IE first, nor those who use MSNBC as a homepage. If MSNBC's homepage had one malware ad on it, you can bet there are or will be more.
Sigh:(
SB
I will definitely second that, I am cleaning up a computer right now that got hit with a drive-by infection; ended up with a TDSS variant and enough other crap on it to make the machine nearly unusable. The user swears up and down that he didn't click on any ads, and his browsing history reflects that.
I've been seeing a lot more infections like this lately, even on machines whose users know better than to click ads (old customers). Took some time to track down where these were coming from; this news comes as no surprise to me.
Back about two months ago one of my home machines here got infected that way - and not only is it thoroughly locked down with up to date antivirus and antispyware, I was using it at the time, and I KNOW I didn't cause the infection myself. Tracked it to an advertisement loaded at the same time I was viewing a NYT article. I knew for certain that I hadn't clicked on any ads; this just confirms my hypothesis at the time.
I spend nearly all my time fixing computers just removing infections. If this is going to continue, it is going to make it nearly impossible for even the most careful users to keep their machines clean. I agree that the main hosts need to start being careful who they host their ads from, it is ultimately their responsibility to ensure they don't host malware drive-by advertising.
SB
*shrug*
I've been atheist since about '78,79, somewhere there. Can't say, didn't wake up one day and say "There is no dog" or anything like that. Raised Lutheran, just didn't take; as Carlin said, I "reached the age of reason".
People who believe in tarot cards, or any other form of superstition or mysticism, are not atheists. I don't know where you get that definition from, but it isn't accurate. They may say they are, but they aren't.
I'll agree that atheism, by itself, is not necessarily rational. But most people who admit to being atheist are rational. We could play statistical quote-me back and forth for weeks, tho.
If it comes down to talking to aliens, tho, I suspect that scientific rationalism - and probably anarchic scientific rationalism - will win the day.
I have to crash, have to work tomorrow. I'd love to debate this more with you, but sleep demands me.
What would an alien species that doesn't sleep think of that? *g*
later
SB
nobody really knows how religion arose in the first place,
Well, yes and no. We have some good theories, and we've watched real religions arise fairly recently -- cargo cults being the obvious example.
In other words, no, we don't know.
The best thing we could do is present an unbiased synopsis of religion as it exists wrt humanity, and explain to them that we are all individuals and that we try to do our best in letting each and every one of us hold our own beliefs.
That's unfortunately only true for a minority of the world.
Unfortunately.
Atheists, at least so far, haven't started any wars.
The AC pointed out Stalin.
See my reply.
There are two crucial issues here: First, no one goes to the war in the name of atheism, while they do in the name of religion.
Why not?
Second, the term "atheist" simply means one who is not a theist -- there is no unifying belief or dogma, no requirement that atheists be scientifically minded critical thinkers or even sane.
Wasn't arguing about that. Read what I wrote.
The numbers right now do tend to favor atheists in a few ways -- fewer in prisons, fewer divorces, etc -- but this isn't really relevant, other than to dispel the notion that atheists are inherently evil or stupid.
Which is a good thing, considering how much atheists have been put down as just that over the centuries, and even here in the US in the last century. But it does argue that perhaps atheists are more mentally and emotionally balanced *g*
You only need one person to be a counterexample to that, but it seems less useful to try to show that atheists are somehow better, more peaceful, smarter, etc.
Wasn't trying to point that out as an overall individual trait, although it certainly seems to be so; I wasn't quoting statistics, you were.
Look, if you want to argue that atheists are or aren't more mentally balanced than the rest of whomever, confine your argument to that. Trying to combine it with psychotics like Stalin, or conflating atheism with theism just doesn't work with me. I just plain don't believe in any godlike or supreme beings at all, ok? I call it rationalism; or in my more drunken moments rational anarchism.
You don't seem to have any real understanding of atheism at all.
Leaving aside the global politics. Ok, wait, we can't.
The people who are in power on this planet, even in the most powerful and influential nation-states, are in power for one reason: they are looking out for the interests of their own citizens. (don't pedant this, it's more or less true)
Not for the interests of the human race, as a whole.
One could hope that any alien race that wished to contact us - or, even, subjugate us - would take the time to study us and find out what they are getting in to.
Sometimes it really pisses me off to have to put in those terms. But I am a citizen of the most powerful country on the planet, and we are not, in any sense of the term, taking our responsibilities as "leaders" very seriously.
Since you are so familiar with them, please tell them that they should step away from the reruns of Iron Chef and get back to work. They don't get more than fifteen minute breaks, either.
Sheezus, if this were to be continued, we'd have millions of posts, all suggesting one extra person.
I'll try and shorten it. Here's a start, anyway:
List of people who should NOT be allowed to participate in First Contact:
Politicians
Actors
Reality show participants
Tom Cruise
Jack Thompson
Elvis (Yeah, he's dead, but that doesn't stop some people)
Astrologers (of any stripe)
Fundamentalists (of any stripe)
Slashdot Mirror
So do you have the resources to run the same computations that the thousands of scientists working independently around the world have, using that data?
Why not? If you did have the data - and there's no reason why you can't get it, as other posters have noted - what would you do with it? Would you even know what to do with it? If you do, then what the hell are you doing posting on slashdot rather than in serious journals where your thoughts about it might make a real difference?
Since you seem to be so confident that you could actually verify all this yourself, then maybe instead of whining about not having the data here, you should be doing real work trying to do so, and then posting results?
All you need to do to get the data is to ask. Of course there are literally terabytes of it.
Idiot.
SB
All this focus on CO2 is distracting from real problems in places like India where they actually have sulphur in the air, which is 100% known to cause problems; it's not just some theoretical issue. Let's focus on real problems, and deal with global warming when we know what the actual problem is.
The sort of problem you are talking about tends to have more immediately measurable consequences, not least because those consequences are local - air pollution such as sulphur and other compounds generated from combustion have been known about for many decades and have been dealt with to some success - Los Angeles being an example. They also tend to have more local/regional immediate effects, although over the last couple decades we've been discovering just how far such pollution can travel.
Global warming is an entirely different problem. We KNOW it's happening; we have observed many of the anticipated (and unanticipated) side effects from it, such as increased glacier melting to loss of permafrost in areas that have been more or less static for many thousands of years, to many other observed effects. This is not "gospel" truth - it's simply true - globally, the atmosphere is warming.
Whether or not it's being caused by humans is really irrelevant - we're not going to just change our industries and technology in any short time span - but we do have to start preparing for what's going to happen. However, since we know that our civilization does produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases and that they likely are contributing to the problem, it's rather stupid to not try and tackle that problem as well, while we're working on energy efficiency, isn't it? In many ways it is exactly the same problem as any other pollution problem. Think about it.
SB
No climate model can accurately predict anything if the inputs (to the atmosphere) are changing due to causes outside the model - such as industrial emissions (this is aimed at your comment "That is, show me a model where I can input a historical data set that terminates in 1900 and have it accurately predict, to a statistically significant degree, most of the climate happenings up through 2000.")
Neither can the models accurately predict climate change if there are sources of greenhouse gases (or, for that matter, cooling) that are unknown either in their existence or their extent at the time the model is constructed. (Such as volcanic eruptions, or increased methane outgassing such as is currently being recorded in many places, etc) NO MODEL CAN PREDICT ANYTHING THAT ISN'T ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MODEL. The scientists who do this for a living do understand this, and are constantly refining their models in order to try to include such effects as more data becomes available.
I was surprised that you didn't mention another potential effect on satellites due to warming - the expansion of the upper atmosphere (which can cause more degradation of LEO orbits). Did they not cover that in your classes? I recall reading more than a few articles about LEO satellites' lifetimes being downgraded over the last couple decades due to unanticipated thermal expansion of the atmosphere (not cyclical effects, but long term trends. I don't have any links, unfortunately.)
Isn't it more likely that your textbooks, curriculum and teacher simply weren't up to date with current theory or data? When I was in college that was a constant problem.
All that said, no, it's not likely that current climate models can accurately predict much past a decade or two - or even over a few years for short term changes; we simply don't have enough data, not yet. But that doesn't mean those same models can't predict trends; such as, more CO2 in such and such amounts will produce more warming, within a margin of error.
In any case, just because your classes did not happen to include any of the current theory, or up to date information on the models being used, does not mean that such information isn't out there. It's a shame you aren't still in those classes, because I'd bet your instructors would have been fascinated if you'd written a research paper based on more up to date information on climate research. You might even have gotten a footnote in a future textbook :)
Cheers,
SB
For the lawyers in this case.
The IP case that just would not die...
I'll bet that they find a way to keep extending it even longer.
SB
I've been using Ubuntu for the last four distributions and have never experienced a single one of the problems you describe.
SB
Ah, so the real problem is too many levels of noise (laptop-rubberfeet-frame etc) Thanks :)
It's amazing what noise filtering software can do nowadays, but I don't have time to keep up with the field and couldn't hope to keep up with the math, so have to ask :)
SB
"Honey, what happened in the apartment last night when I was at work? The geo-survey people tell me they recorded a 9 richter scale earthquake here."
"Nothing, dear."
SB
Couldn't they filter noise of that nature out with the same software they use for seismometers?
SB
The truth is that plenty of U.S. slashdotters who championed the success of moderate amounts of socialism in California and of healthcare and other social services in Europe are conveniently neglecting the reality that California is bankrupt and that all of the European countries are either bankrupt or soon to be.
Which may be true or not wrt Europe, I don't know enough to call you on that (and I doubt anyone does) but California's fiscal problems haven't been caused solely by overspending on health care.
But I will ask you: is it nationalized health care that is going to bankrupt them? Or is it just plain corruption and bad management of fiscal resources?
Citation, please?
In any case, I suspect that any government that doesn't ensure that it's citizens have access to affordable health care in our modern times will last very long. The technology to do so is here; it's access to it that's the problem. If that problem is not dealt with on a more global level, soon, then the western/first world countries will soon have a lot worse problems to deal with.
SB
That's the funniest thing I've read today.
You know what is really, really shameful?
That not only are our elected representatives too ignorant, for the most part, to understand why this is a stupid idea; they are so arrogant that they won't even seek out opinions from the people who work in the industry, and know that there is not, and never will be, any such thing as a "unhackable" ID.
It's been said before, in many forms, by many people, and I've said it on this site more than once in the past, but I'll say it again (refined it since the last time)
No matter how smart you are, no matter how well you implement a piece of technology, you will always be defeated, if not by another human out of the seven billion available, then by teams of people working together." - old form was "No matter how smart you are, there is always somebody smarter."
I can't and won't claim credit for it, but it should be a basic natural law of sentience, dammit.
SB
The ironic part is that some people will continue to believe it's possible. They'll call it rigged, or that he couldn't concentrate, or some such bullshit excuse. Just like much of the other crap that's been spewed by modern snake oil salesmen. Including evangelists. If I were an alien contact team on it's way here, and managed to translate that program (and many others) enough to get the gist of what was going on, I would change course and hit up the next system in my contact list. Translating tv/languages is one thing, understanding that most of the inhabitants consider it silly nonsense*, takes a lot more work. Next planetary system, please. We'll return to this one in a couple thousand years and see if they are still around. ;-)
* Ok, some of the inhabitants...
SB
Atheism is not a religion. It is the ABSENCE of religious beliefs. But won't disagree with RD not having an agenda - his agenda is to rid the world of silly superstitious nonsense. Seems to be a good thing, to me. However that is why I suggested his name somewhat tongue in cheek :)
As to communication - yes, it's very likely we won't be able to communicate with an alien race at all. But I doubt it will be because of any limitations on their part. More likely, ours.
SB
Doesn't help users with new computers that were built without opening IE first, nor those who use MSNBC as a homepage. If MSNBC's homepage had one malware ad on it, you can bet there are or will be more. Sigh :(
SB
Yes, using Foxit does seem to help, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be 100% compatible with all pdf files. Anyone know any more about that? SB
I will definitely second that, I am cleaning up a computer right now that got hit with a drive-by infection; ended up with a TDSS variant and enough other crap on it to make the machine nearly unusable. The user swears up and down that he didn't click on any ads, and his browsing history reflects that. I've been seeing a lot more infections like this lately, even on machines whose users know better than to click ads (old customers). Took some time to track down where these were coming from; this news comes as no surprise to me. Back about two months ago one of my home machines here got infected that way - and not only is it thoroughly locked down with up to date antivirus and antispyware, I was using it at the time, and I KNOW I didn't cause the infection myself. Tracked it to an advertisement loaded at the same time I was viewing a NYT article. I knew for certain that I hadn't clicked on any ads; this just confirms my hypothesis at the time. I spend nearly all my time fixing computers just removing infections. If this is going to continue, it is going to make it nearly impossible for even the most careful users to keep their machines clean. I agree that the main hosts need to start being careful who they host their ads from, it is ultimately their responsibility to ensure they don't host malware drive-by advertising. SB
Oh, I did read them. Did you? SB
*shrug* I've been atheist since about '78,79, somewhere there. Can't say, didn't wake up one day and say "There is no dog" or anything like that. Raised Lutheran, just didn't take; as Carlin said, I "reached the age of reason". People who believe in tarot cards, or any other form of superstition or mysticism, are not atheists. I don't know where you get that definition from, but it isn't accurate. They may say they are, but they aren't. I'll agree that atheism, by itself, is not necessarily rational. But most people who admit to being atheist are rational. We could play statistical quote-me back and forth for weeks, tho. If it comes down to talking to aliens, tho, I suspect that scientific rationalism - and probably anarchic scientific rationalism - will win the day. I have to crash, have to work tomorrow. I'd love to debate this more with you, but sleep demands me. What would an alien species that doesn't sleep think of that? *g* later SB
nobody really knows how religion arose in the first place,
Well, yes and no. We have some good theories, and we've watched real religions arise fairly recently -- cargo cults being the obvious example.
In other words, no, we don't know.
The best thing we could do is present an unbiased synopsis of religion as it exists wrt humanity, and explain to them that we are all individuals and that we try to do our best in letting each and every one of us hold our own beliefs.
That's unfortunately only true for a minority of the world.
Unfortunately.
Atheists, at least so far, haven't started any wars.
The AC pointed out Stalin.
See my reply.
There are two crucial issues here: First, no one goes to the war in the name of atheism, while they do in the name of religion.
Why not?
Second, the term "atheist" simply means one who is not a theist -- there is no unifying belief or dogma, no requirement that atheists be scientifically minded critical thinkers or even sane.
Wasn't arguing about that. Read what I wrote.
The numbers right now do tend to favor atheists in a few ways -- fewer in prisons, fewer divorces, etc -- but this isn't really relevant, other than to dispel the notion that atheists are inherently evil or stupid.
Which is a good thing, considering how much atheists have been put down as just that over the centuries, and even here in the US in the last century. But it does argue that perhaps atheists are more mentally and emotionally balanced *g*
You only need one person to be a counterexample to that, but it seems less useful to try to show that atheists are somehow better, more peaceful, smarter, etc.
Wasn't trying to point that out as an overall individual trait, although it certainly seems to be so; I wasn't quoting statistics, you were.
Look, if you want to argue that atheists are or aren't more mentally balanced than the rest of whomever, confine your argument to that. Trying to combine it with psychotics like Stalin, or conflating atheism with theism just doesn't work with me. I just plain don't believe in any godlike or supreme beings at all, ok? I call it rationalism; or in my more drunken moments rational anarchism.
You don't seem to have any real understanding of atheism at all.
SB
Just what wars did Stalin start?
(I'm not arguing that he wasn't an evil sonofabitch, but just what wars did he start?)
SB
Even Sarah Palin has to duck across the border to canada to afford medicine.
Which any simple google search shows lots of articles about.
You know what I hate about the polarization of the issue of government health care in the US wrt Slashdot?
Even after many thousands of posts with citations, few seem to have read them.
SB
Indeed.
Leaving aside the global politics. Ok, wait, we can't.
The people who are in power on this planet, even in the most powerful and influential nation-states, are in power for one reason: they are looking out for the interests of their own citizens. (don't pedant this, it's more or less true)
Not for the interests of the human race, as a whole.
One could hope that any alien race that wished to contact us - or, even, subjugate us - would take the time to study us and find out what they are getting in to.
Sometimes it really pisses me off to have to put in those terms. But I am a citizen of the most powerful country on the planet, and we are not, in any sense of the term, taking our responsibilities as "leaders" very seriously.
SB
Edward James Olmos.
"There is no latino race, no caucasian race,... there's just the Human race! So say we all!"
So say we all. Well, those of us without a personal agenda, anyway.
SB
Yeah, and then loser nukes you with a homegrown backpack mounted nuclear accelerator.
Game over, man, game over.
Godhood sucks.
SB
Since you are so familiar with them, please tell them that they should step away from the reruns of Iron Chef and get back to work. They don't get more than fifteen minute breaks, either.
SB
Sheezus, if this were to be continued, we'd have millions of posts, all suggesting one extra person.
I'll try and shorten it. Here's a start, anyway:
List of people who should NOT be allowed to participate in First Contact:
Politicians
Actors
Reality show participants
Tom Cruise
Jack Thompson
Elvis (Yeah, he's dead, but that doesn't stop some people)
Astrologers (of any stripe)
Fundamentalists (of any stripe)
?To be continued?