I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:
1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
it's an interesting problem - i think of money like mass. The more of it there is one place, the more money it attracts, until you get to a point where its like a black hole and there is no way to stop it sucking up whoever's money it wants.
Seriously. Even with a slashdot subscription where you get a heads up on articles that are about to be posted, this is a long and thought out first post. I'm not a tin foil hat brigade card holder but this smells funny.
The United States is doing a good job at managing the very infrastructure they designed and implemented. If other countries wish to maintain their own networks, they are free to build a proprietary network and protocol to do so. Our Internet protocols are no secret (open source) and can easily be integrated with other proprietary networks.
There's no great insight just an observation. I just don't understand why the site has to be so cheerleader'isk. Why can't they report the facts without the jabs?
Ok, I have to say this and I don't care how I get modded. Sometimes you just need to say what's obvious to you.
I've been reading Slashdot for years and years. No one really talks about it but this site has an obvious agenda which is anti-Micro$oft. Do I care? No. Is it a big deal? No. I'll continue to read this site like I have for years because they cover great things in the technology industry but don't even tell me that this isn't true. It's so blatant to me.
"Why Apple Failed in the 90s"
"Microsoft's new beta software reviewed as 'terrible'"
"The Ugandan government is adopting Linunx"
Furthermore, a fully preemptive kernel (ie, all the kernel data structures protected) with multiple processes being able to be in kernel context at the same time can bring even regular (non-realtime) computer tasks.
That's interesting. So are you saying that unprotected kernel data structures are being manipulated by outside kernel processes which in turn cause more kernel processes to react and therefore slow the system down?
I appreciate your concern regarding my argument but I have to respectfully disagree. I'll take your suggestion under advisement but I'll probably keep my current user account. I am but only human and as you know from your misspellings (i.e. 'demilished', 'dialy') above we sometimes make mistakes.
The worst is when they don't realize how disingenuous they're being, which I believe is the case with you. Ignorance of ignorance is the pits.
Disingenuous? I assure you sir that I meant and believe what I've said above. What's disingenuous is that you attack me personally and sign your name as Anonymous Coward. Actually, that's more ironic than anything.
You bring up the inability to rely on temperature readings from the early 1900s, despite the mercury thermometer having been invented 200 years prior
If you think Ezekiel's mercury thermometer reading back in 1903 is a good source of data, I think you're crazy. What I'm saying is there are more accurate technologies, such as semiconductors and wavelength analysis, that are available today which can be counted on as a good way of more accurately measuring temperature.
but offer no science as to how that increase in activity affects to the temperature of the earth. It's just a correlative model, and it makes sense to you, and there's no way other scientists could have thought to include that in their models
Ok, here it is in a nut shell. Particles are affected by magnetic fields. There was a famous experiment done by two scientists named Stern and Gerlach (source: http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/exp-st ern-gerlach.html) where they effected the velocity of particles based magnetic fields induced on them. The Earth's magnetic field acts in a similar way to protect us from the Sun's particles. I'm saying that a natural decrease in the Earth's magnetic field is possibly allowing more particles/radiation into our atmosphere thus attributing to global warming.
I work in an unrelated field, but I once took a science class and we learned simplistic models of complex topics that bear tangential relation to the science I'm debunking
I'm not sure I see your point. For the record, I'm an Electrical Engineer where I studied energy and the very topic we're discussing here. To say I'm not qualified to comment on how energy may be affecting the Earth is silly. Besides, I have a right just like everyone else to speak my mind and you or anyone else won't silence me.
Your final point is that other planets are experiencing temperature variation in the same direction as Earth's. Of course, you discount that Mars has no magnetic field and a different atmospheric makeup, Jupiter has a massive magnetic field, generates huge amounts of energy, and is a gas giant, not rocky, planet
All I'm saying is that when other planets are experiencing climate changes like our planet is, don't you think that maybe nature just does this sort of thing? In other words, if Jupiter and Mars' climate are changing, is it so weird that ours is also?
Armchair science breeds ideas like creationism, intelligent design, and young-Earth theories. To the moderators that modded the parent up, please take a moment to think critically and realize that you are promoting lazy thinking and reinforcing the idea that it's perfectly OK to disregard years of work by thousands of people without ever getting out of your chair, just because something can sound sensible.
Huh? I'd like to make a suggestion for you now Mr. Anonymous Coward. Instead of anonymously putting other people down because you don't like what they're saying, next time engage in a debate and counter with your own ideas instead. I wish you well Mr. Anonymous Coward. Hopefully we can have a cup of coffee sometime.
You're absolutely right. I hate it when I forget to move the decimal point. I stand corrected.
For the sake of my point, let's say the Sun isn't getting any hotter. It's widely accepted that the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. In fact, it's widely accepted that this is a natural occurrence every 1,000,000 to 200,000 years (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) or so where evidence can be found by the ferrous metal domain alignments in old geological rocks.
The point is, the Earth's radiation shield is weaker so what's to stop the Sun's radiation from entering the atmosphere more easily/readily?
And for the record, a minor correction on my part, the increase in the Sun's activity isn't 10% in 15 years but rather 1.5-2.0% in 30 years. Regardless, my point is it's getting warmer which may explain why the Earth is also warmer.
I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:
1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.
4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html)
6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)
How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html)? What about the American dust bowl in the early 1930's? Was that caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
I'm not an astronomer but I try to keep up on this stuff. Isn't this significant? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they use the wavelengths and template makeup from type 1a novas to gauge the distance at which the explosion occurred? If 1a novas aren't all the same, which this article suggests, aren't the ramifications from this pretty big? Wouldn't this put into question not only the current map of the known universe but also whether the rate of universal expansion?
Slashdot Mirror
I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
it's an interesting problem - i think of money like mass. The more of it there is one place, the more money it attracts, until you get to a point where its like a black hole and there is no way to stop it sucking up whoever's money it wants.
Exactly! I've thought the same before.
Seriously. Even with a slashdot subscription where you get a heads up on articles that are about to be posted, this is a long and thought out first post. I'm not a tin foil hat brigade card holder but this smells funny.
Zing!
I guess pessimism and negativity is the order of the day, especially on Slashdot.
Go on, I know you want to flame me.
The United States is doing a good job at managing the very infrastructure they designed and implemented. If other countries wish to maintain their own networks, they are free to build a proprietary network and protocol to do so. Our Internet protocols are no secret (open source) and can easily be integrated with other proprietary networks.
lol
What's a clod?
You prove my point. Your sarcasm indicates you agree:
Oh no! I'm shocked!
All I'm asking is why this has to be? Like I said earlier, I don't really care but why all the negativity?
There's no great insight just an observation. I just don't understand why the site has to be so cheerleader'isk. Why can't they report the facts without the jabs?
Ok, I have to say this and I don't care how I get modded. Sometimes you just need to say what's obvious to you.
I've been reading Slashdot for years and years. No one really talks about it but this site has an obvious agenda which is anti-Micro$oft. Do I care? No. Is it a big deal? No. I'll continue to read this site like I have for years because they cover great things in the technology industry but don't even tell me that this isn't true. It's so blatant to me.
"Why Apple Failed in the 90s"
"Microsoft's new beta software reviewed as 'terrible'"
"The Ugandan government is adopting Linunx"
Let the flaming begin!
What about for windows?
Don't flame me. I also use Linux.
*cringes and waits for the attack*
That's a bad ass box.
Gotcha. Thanks.
Furthermore, a fully preemptive kernel (ie, all the kernel data structures protected) with multiple processes being able to be in kernel context at the same time can bring even regular (non-realtime) computer tasks.
That's interesting. So are you saying that unprotected kernel data structures are being manipulated by outside kernel processes which in turn cause more kernel processes to react and therefore slow the system down?
Why Larry King? Genetic replication of anyone who has the propensity to wear suspenders should be outlawed.
This is a good explanation of how the Earth's magnetic field influences particles from the Sun and it's from a University:
n etic.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/mag
Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward,
I appreciate your concern regarding my argument but I have to respectfully disagree. I'll take your suggestion under advisement but I'll probably keep my current user account. I am but only human and as you know from your misspellings (i.e. 'demilished', 'dialy') above we sometimes make mistakes.
Good luck to you Mr. Coward. I wish you the best.
Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward,
t ern-gerlach.html) where they effected the velocity of particles based magnetic fields induced on them. The Earth's magnetic field acts in a similar way to protect us from the Sun's particles. I'm saying that a natural decrease in the Earth's magnetic field is possibly allowing more particles/radiation into our atmosphere thus attributing to global warming.
The worst is when they don't realize how disingenuous they're being, which I believe is the case with you. Ignorance of ignorance is the pits.
Disingenuous? I assure you sir that I meant and believe what I've said above. What's disingenuous is that you attack me personally and sign your name as Anonymous Coward. Actually, that's more ironic than anything.
You bring up the inability to rely on temperature readings from the early 1900s, despite the mercury thermometer having been invented 200 years prior
If you think Ezekiel's mercury thermometer reading back in 1903 is a good source of data, I think you're crazy. What I'm saying is there are more accurate technologies, such as semiconductors and wavelength analysis, that are available today which can be counted on as a good way of more accurately measuring temperature.
but offer no science as to how that increase in activity affects to the temperature of the earth. It's just a correlative model, and it makes sense to you, and there's no way other scientists could have thought to include that in their models
Ok, here it is in a nut shell. Particles are affected by magnetic fields. There was a famous experiment done by two scientists named Stern and Gerlach (source: http://library.thinkquest.org/19662/low/eng/exp-s
I work in an unrelated field, but I once took a science class and we learned simplistic models of complex topics that bear tangential relation to the science I'm debunking
I'm not sure I see your point. For the record, I'm an Electrical Engineer where I studied energy and the very topic we're discussing here. To say I'm not qualified to comment on how energy may be affecting the Earth is silly. Besides, I have a right just like everyone else to speak my mind and you or anyone else won't silence me.
Your final point is that other planets are experiencing temperature variation in the same direction as Earth's. Of course, you discount that Mars has no magnetic field and a different atmospheric makeup, Jupiter has a massive magnetic field, generates huge amounts of energy, and is a gas giant, not rocky, planet
All I'm saying is that when other planets are experiencing climate changes like our planet is, don't you think that maybe nature just does this sort of thing? In other words, if Jupiter and Mars' climate are changing, is it so weird that ours is also?
Armchair science breeds ideas like creationism, intelligent design, and young-Earth theories. To the moderators that modded the parent up, please take a moment to think critically and realize that you are promoting lazy thinking and reinforcing the idea that it's perfectly OK to disregard years of work by thousands of people without ever getting out of your chair, just because something can sound sensible.
Huh? I'd like to make a suggestion for you now Mr. Anonymous Coward. Instead of anonymously putting other people down because you don't like what they're saying, next time engage in a debate and counter with your own ideas instead. I wish you well Mr. Anonymous Coward. Hopefully we can have a cup of coffee sometime.
You're absolutely right. I hate it when I forget to move the decimal point. I stand corrected.
) or so where evidence can be found by the ferrous metal domain alignments in old geological rocks.
For the sake of my point, let's say the Sun isn't getting any hotter. It's widely accepted that the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing. In fact, it's widely accepted that this is a natural occurrence every 1,000,000 to 200,000 years (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
The point is, the Earth's radiation shield is weaker so what's to stop the Sun's radiation from entering the atmosphere more easily/readily?
3.) Who says that? According to the World Radiation Center and the Max Planck institute, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since the 40s.
0 30320.html
That's incorrect. See here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_
And for the record, a minor correction on my part, the increase in the Sun's activity isn't 10% in 15 years but rather 1.5-2.0% in 30 years. Regardless, my point is it's getting warmer which may explain why the Earth is also warmer.
I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:
j r.html)/ mars_snow_011206-1.html)
1 826.o0mynclv.html)? What about the American dust bowl in the early 1930's? Was that caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) The sun's activity has increased by approx. 10% in the last 15 years. In other words, it's getting hotter.
4.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
5.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_
6.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem
How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/06082119
lol, dum, dum, dum, dum.
I'm not an astronomer but I try to keep up on this stuff. Isn't this significant? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they use the wavelengths and template makeup from type 1a novas to gauge the distance at which the explosion occurred? If 1a novas aren't all the same, which this article suggests, aren't the ramifications from this pretty big? Wouldn't this put into question not only the current map of the known universe but also whether the rate of universal expansion?
I like unpolitically correct. It makes reading /. more interesting.
Yikes, the parent's comments are not political correct. I love it.