All existing naturally ocurring heavy elements are the result of ancient supernovae. It is quite possible that these new elements already exist around other supernovae, which whilst catastropic, are definitely natural. It is just that none was around when the earth coalesced.
Good point - how about, 92 is the heaviest element occurring naturally in a 4.5B-year-old planet?
Of course, given that some of these really heavy ones have half-lives many times less than a second (this one is 110 microseconds), it seems fair to say that, for all intents and purposes, none is left. If a supernovae somehow made 10^10,000,000 atoms of this, around one atom would be left after an hour. Note that I don't think there are any stars this large.
End result is that, by the time any planet has formed in which this stuff can occur, it will have decayed.
Yep. And if I were playing devil's advocate, I would ask why the temp increase occurred in 2 bursts - 1920 to 1930, and 1980 or so until today. Between the 30's and the 80's, things were relatively calm.
Now, there are a ton of potential explanations, and this doesn't suggest that we *aren't* responsible, but it isn't the sort of "no-doubt" trend that one would expect for the claims to be completely airtight. And that's all I said originally - there's enough stuff here that's not rock solid that we shouldn't start ridiculing anyone who doesn't come up with teh "correct" answer. But let's also put it this way - I don't own an SUV, and I never will. I wouldn't mind owning a hybrid next time I'm in the car market.
The way I see it, Caldera gave it to me for free. They didn't have to, but they did choose to. If they wanted money they should have asked for it. Any code, propriorty or not, was given to me freely.
For God's sake - what kernel was that? Because it hasn't been until somewhere in the 2.4 that SCO claims this crap. 2.2, I believe, is supposed to be untainted. That old Caldera distro isn't relevant here.
Or simply just take credit for it and make everybody THINK they did it to scare people, as well as plant the seed of doubt that the government might be trying to coverup an actual terrorist attack. No I'm not paranoid, this is probably not a terrorist attack, I'm just saying, I wouldn't put it past our government to try to coverup something like this just because it would show how useless all the things they've done really are.
Everyone will take credit. You'll see Hamas, PLO, Al Queda, Sinn Fein, the Bloods, Cryps, Freemasons, and a few Little League teams take credit for this.
And I guess I'm just tired of having people tell me they "don't believe" in global warming every time I mention my research.
Hey, no problem. Personally, I think the problem there, on *both* sides of the debate, is the word "believe." Sounds a bit too dogmatic for me, and that seems to be a large portion of the problem.
I also want to make clear: I have no problem with skepticism regarding human induced global warming. If you couldn't tell, I'm (if not skeptical) then at least willing to listen to well-thought-out arguments against human-induced warming made by scientists who aren't paid by oil companies (yes, there are some, in my department in fact).
I could tell, actually, and it's honestly refreshing to see. I have absolutely no problem with the stance you've taken on this problem - frankly, I think the problem is that things you (as the climatological community) say in a reserved way are amplified by the media and groups that want to believe specific things.
What I don't appreciate are the arguments of those who want to avoid the policy impications of potential warming because those implications could hurt their pocket books in the short term. I realize that this is an understandable reaction, but it's also one that I profoundly disagree with.
I agree with that too - but it *can* be a bit dangerous too. Do you automatically distrust anyone who espouses "contrarian" results? I imagine you don't - but I think too many people do. Not all skeptics are "oil men," but it actually seems to be a well-held belief that they are.
So from a policy perspective, I guess I am far more frustrated than from a scientific perspective.
What, you mean how the oil industry has fought mass transit and alternative industry sources? Naaah.;)
Personally, I would be happy to see funding given legitimate researchers whose past publications have cast doubt on human induced global warming.
I think it's even necessary. Science (and I mean this broadly) gets too incestuous. Certainly is in my field (and if you haven't guessed, we've published contrarian positions before. And had to publish them in lesser journals because the people whose research we were questioning got to review our papers).
Back to the scientific questions: From my perspective, the extreme warming in the last 150 years seems pretty watertight.
That it's occurred? Of course - though I would still wonder if it's extreme with a little "e" or a big "E." From there, it's a question of what it implies.
That would be 80 150-year periods.
That's not bad. As a person who likes to get reams of stats before making a decision (I like thousands of samples), it leaves wiggle room - but there's obviously a pretty good chance you're right. Like I said, I never said it was *wrong.* But there have been periods of extreme climate wierdness (like the mini-ice-age in Europe in, what, the late 1600's? So these things can happen - and *do* happen. So you're right, the question is what's the chance it's luck?
If you have other reasonable hypotheses, I would love to hear them.
This is fuzzy, because it's off the top of my head, but I would like to see the lag between fossil-fuel-burning and human-induced warming. I know the latter number does not exist - obviously, that would be the answer to your question if it did - but even an estimate would be fine. Because the change in fossil fuel burning has been exponential, the change in CO2 must be too. And from that, *if* the direct relationship is to be believed, most of that increase in the last 150 yrs. should have been in the last 50. I know this data is as noisy as can be and there's no control group, but there should still be an effect. If it's flat, or otherwise-shaped, I'd be more likely to believe the "random fluctuation" theory. If the exponential tracks, then you may have a convert.
That is not how I read his (her?) comments. It's not conclusively proven, certainly - very few things are - but but the evidence supports it. It's considerably better than "best guess". And I'm assuming you mean here "affect the climate significantly" because the literal interpretation of what you wrote would be absurd.
That's my ultimate point. While global warming is logical from a first order interpretation of CO2, it's an incredibly complicated issue and anyone who says that the matter is rock-solid is being ridiculous. So when you compare that to cold-fusion, which *was* thoroughly debunked (at least as claimed), and for which no research is ongoing, is very much a disservice and a tad insulting, I imagine, to those people who have predicted climate models that come out with little to no change. And obviously the literal interpretation wasn't intended, I don't assume you're an idiot.
I am not certain, of course. I'm willing to look at alternate evidence if it exists - but I find the evidence and the consensus of climatologists convincing.
Convinced for the whole deal? We're responsible for *all* of the current increase in temperature, and that this can be extrapolated? Because there's no concensus even among climatologists for that. That's the problem here - it's not as if there's a really *clear* answer even from the somewhat pro-warming camp. So in a way, you seem more convinced than they are, unless I'm overestimating your definition of "convinced."
If the same source outputs [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] people all of a sudden get interested and say "I wonder what's going on." There's nothing going on. The random source doesn't care whether your brain wants to ascribe some special meaning to the sequence [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]; it generated it mindlessly, and your human tendency to pick out patterns has kicked in. You are imposing your own order on it, when no real order exists.
So you're saying if you set up a rand-generator and it spits out {1,2,3,4,5,6...} the first time you use it you won't check it?;)
I understand what you mean though. I love how people try to stay away from runs of numbers when filling out their lottery tickets.
Unless you are either a researcher in the field or have specific evidence that contradicts the majority then you have to accept the expertise of those scientists.
I am a scientist and have the ability to evaluate a piece of research on its own merits, thanks. So no I don't. I'll make up my own mind.
If you had bothered to read it you would have found that it is a faq that does indeed link to published work. Not that it matters; the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. It is up to you to try to find some evidence supporting your statement - which I am calling crap.
This is slashdot. I publish real papers, I don't have time to perform research to convince someone who goes by the name Pentagram for chrissakes.
I am a scientist. I am not a climatologist, but I seem to know more about the science than you do judging from your volcano comment.
Really? Where'd you get your PhD?
I am certainly not an expert in climatology, but I accept that cold fusion is probably crap, that there is no significant evidence for telepathy, that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, and that human activity is causing significant changes in the climate.
There is no active research ongoing for any of the above except warming. Second, global warming has not been tested, for obvious reasons of not owning a time machine. This means that you are convinced by an UNTESTED THEORY. For that reason, the models better all line up perfectly for the research to be rock-solid. They don't. Even among the people who have come up with warming trends, they don't agree. Is this enough to make me believe the contrary (cooling or stasis) viewpoint? No. Is it enough to make me doubt their conclusions? Yes, and it should be enough for anyone who has actually read their results. In this thread I've heard from one climatologist. He freely admits that, while the "best guess" is that humans affect the environment, this is far from conclusively proven. My guess is that you spend more time reading dogma than actual research, which is why you're so convinced. I readily admit I don't know what's goin on with warming. Your certainty casts doubt on your objectivity, which is typcially a problem.
You claimed to be an expert and then made a fundamental error, and you glibly accused people of intellectual dishonesty without any evidence, two of the things that significantly piss me off.
First, I never accused anyone of dishonesty. Re-read what I said and my response to the actual climatologist in the thread. No one is being dishonest, it's simply a polarized debate, and people take sides. This naturally affects the publication cycle, in this as in every other similar field. I've had it happen to me in a field not at all related to warming. It's part of academics.
Second, I claimed to be a scientist, not an expert (though on slashdot it's better than the average geek). I know a lot about climatology, but I have the confidence to admit my fallability. If people making fundamental errors piss you off, you need to learn 1) tolerance, and 2) the fact that you aren't perfect either. Either way, getting pissed about a normal discussion isn't a good personal characteristic. Might want to work on that.
Wait. So you're saying that there's been no credible research supporting a contrarian position to the man-made warming climatological thesis?
No, I'm saying it's more difficult to get those results published, because you're going against the grain of the "accepted" viewpoint.
And you're claiming that such is proof that we can't trust the majority?
I'm saying that, if things were fair, it might not be such a clear majority. I'm not impugning any particular group, or person. Simply saying that the statistics of who believes what end up being skewed by artificially culling part of the population.
That researchers all over the US are busy propagating the man-made warming myth due to a search for funding..
Wow, talk about words in mouth. "Myth" implies something that is readily believed and is certainly false. Man-made warming has not been proven false, certainly, and I never said it was.
from the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress?
Last I checked, one does not submit grant proposals to the white house nor congress. If one were to use the old political barometer, I would say that the typical funding agencies are certainly not right-leaning (except almost certainly any of the defense-related ones like DARPA). NSF and NIH, for example, are a tad left of center if anything, but I'm *NOT* saying that such is evidence or indicative of any sort of bias.
Any paraticular reason you seem to be so angry about this? Sheesh.
To begin with, you confuse two different questions. The first is whether the globe is warming up. This is, almost certainly, the case. It is complicated by the fact, however, that different regions have different climate trends. For example, large parts of Canada are actually cooling. This research is based not on modeling of future events but on currently available climate data from all over the globe. If you want to assault the theory of global warming, this is not the place to do it.
Naturally. We're talking about whether man is responsible for either of the above - either 1) the current increase is due to us, 2) whether future trends will involve warming, and 3) whether those two are related.
One point that suggests greater human influence is the precipitous rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years or so. We have never seen a change in global temperatures quite this rapid, going back thousands of years.
True, but if we're considering blocks of 150 years over thousands of years (how many thousands), we're talking about maybe a few tens of 150-year blocks. To me, that in itself doesn't constitute proof. There is also the question of whether we're addressing this from a policy or scientific standpoint. If policy, it doesn't matter what the source is, we need to get this under control doing whatever we can. Scientifically, it's more of an intellectual question, related more to prediction of future trends.
Regarding the so-called grant effect: the reasoning behind this theory is questionable at best. First, most of the grants used for academic research on global warming come from government organizations (NASA, NSF, etc.) that tend to be fairly unbiased in their funding.
Talk to your advisor on that one. The grant distribution process is anything *but* unbiased, in any field, simply because anyone evaluating the grants is also typically performing research in the field. If you've been lucky enough to avoid that mess, I'm happy for you, but I've gotten nailed by it. It's particularly a problem when your boss has a higher profile than you'd like.
You don't apply for a grant to fund research denying global warming.
No, but if that was your conclusion in your last paper, that's effectively what your next grant proposal says. People have memories, and it takes a broad-minded person to thumbs-up a grant or research for someone who published results contrary to their own. Too many scientists see that as some sort of a personal attack. And, unfortunately, sometimes it is.
Whatever the case may be, calling global warming some kind of a liberal conspiracy theory insults both the integrity and intelligence of the thousands of researchers world-wide who study it.
That is well overstating what I actually said. It's not a conspiracy, and I never said it was. It's simply the fact that in any field where there is a very polarized debate (like this one), people tend to take sides. And, those with the majority tend to reinforce each other, being nicer to each other at grant review and publishing time. Those in the minority tend to get the opposite treatment, and eventually don't get large grants or publication in good journals. It's just human nature, and one need not invoke a conspiracy theory to address it. Though interestingly, from what you said, you don't seem to have a problem invoking that argument for those taking the other side.
I want to be clear here - I'm not saying that any of the pro-warming research is bunk. I'm simply saying that basing your conclusion about global warming on which side publishes more papers in Science and Nature is a faulty premise.
So is global warming happening? Almost certainly.
Do humans play a role in this? Probably, but how much is still a big question.
Are you right to say that we should take steps to ameliorate potential impacts before it's too late? In my opinion, yes.
And as I said previously, I completely agree with the first and third point, and would say the jury is out on the second. I think you got the wrong impression - I'm not militant on this issue, I'm just tired of hearing the "global warming must be true because more climatologists say so than not" argument.
You are correct that white noise can produce appropriately random numbers.
By definition, white noise is completely random. The question is whether the noise is completely white.;)
The problem is that for encryption purposes you may need some huge random numbers. If you want to do that from an analog solution you'll have to take your samples closer and closer together, until the numbers become less random. If you start sampling sound 1 million times a second, any two values next to each other my be really close and actually predictable.
One solution to that is to only keep the least significant digits from any measurement. So if I take a 32-bit floating-point measurement, I would keep, say, only the last four bits. Increases the sampling requirements but helps the randomness.
Anyway, my idea for an open source number generator is to have people on slashdot post the first number that comes to mind in this thread. I don't know if it could get more random.... (patent pending)
The only numbers that generates is 42,69,503,and 23. I figure in 2 more posts you might get 17 too.
Don't be absurd. The oil industry has more money than God, and they have a vested interest in debunking global warming. The fact that their attempts thus far have been relatively ineffectual speaks volumes.
No it doesn't. First, any group can buy some scientist on any issue. That's a given - if Shell wanted, they could buy a scientist. The problem is that this person would not get published, and would not get tenure. You forget that the same groups doing peer-review for the grant process are the same ones doing it for the publication process.
So if I take Shell's money, I'm obviously not going to cite that fact in a publication I submit. If I claim no global warming (or even cooling!) and I don't have any governmental funding agencies in my acknowledgements, they'll figure it out. And have fun publishing in the Journal of the Lithuanian Climatological Society. Because nowhere else will take you.
You might also find difficulty finding funding to research cold fusion from your peers if you are a physicist. That does not mean that cold fusion is correct. Please argue on the basis of evidence, not on throwing unsubstantiated allegations of scientific corruption.
I'm not saying it is, but when you have a cliquish peer-review process that supports each other, you can't determine an answer from a majority-rules consensus. Note that I did *not* say that global warming is incorrect; I merely said that the appearance of a vocal majority does not mean that it is necessarily correct. Big differece. And those claims aren't unsubstantiated - I'm a grad student in the sciences, and I have a good bit of knowledge of the peer review process. My advisor has done work on global warming.
If you had indeed "studied this issue intensely", you would have discovered that this is a myth. CO2 released through human activity dwarfs that released through volcanoes (see here for example).
Nice link from what, brighton73.freeserve.co.uk? Is that peer reviewed? No? Thought not. I'll read real evidence, but don't give me that tripe.
Please, in the future, don't talk bollocks, don't throw baseless accusations, research your claims, and don't claim to be an authority on something you clearly know little about.
Are you a scientist? If not, I likely know more about it than you do. From your post and your references, it's pretty clear you're dogmatic about the issue, you have no knowledge of science or scientific method, and you completely lack objectivity. And the degree to which you have become offended at a rational post (mine) speaks volumes.
If I was a scientist and wanted to produce research that showed there was no global warming do you think I could get money from Shell or Mobil. Do you think I could get money from Rupert Murdoch? Do you think I could get money from the Cato institue or thosands of republican "think thanks"? DO you think I could get money form the hundreds of millionaires who stand to make a lot of money from burning oil, polluting or whatever?
Yes, and then you wouldn't get published or tenure. That's not an option. If it were, don't you think someone would take them up on it, even to do spurious research? The fact that it's not happening should say something - and it's not regarding the ultimate answer of global warming.
Look at anybody who has written a book arguing against global warming.
Books mean shit. They're not peer reviewed. In the sciences, writing a book does nothing for the career of an academic. Those books, from either side, aren't research, and they're not accepted as such.
Oh please! If I were to point a gun at your head, would you wait for true solid evidence that it were loaded before you ducked? Of course not - the only truly solid evidence is your brains splattered on the wall, by which time it's too late. Same with global climate change.
I'm also a global warming skeptic and that's the only argument I buy. Hedge on the side of assuming it's our fault, because by the time we're sure it's going to be way too late.
The scientific consensus is strong. Perfect, no, but outside of right-wing talk show hosts and oil company shills, there is no real doubt that human activity is altering the climate.
Having studied this issue intensely, that is flat wrong. There are two effects going on. First, modeling climate is exceptionally difficult, and the most difficult aspect is predicting the activity of clouds. On one hand, they reflect light (cooling), but on the other hand, they act as a blanket (warming). Depending on the thickness and density of the clouds, these parameters are traded off. So scientists have to predict more than the levels of CO2 produced. And it ain't easy.
The second effect is the "grant effect." All grants are peer-reviewed - that is, when you apply for money, people in your field decide if your current and prior work makes you a valid candidate for getting $$$. Now, obviously, this gets very cliqueish, and if you consistently advocate a contrarian position (ie, global cooling or stasis), you will have a very hard time getting money. In other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding. In this way, the "answer" in the global warming debate is shaped by who can still get funding, and this is a very dogmatic, polarized field. And on this, the liberals are every bit as biased as the oil company asshats. The people I would listen to are the ones not blustering on either side, but who consider cooling/stasis to at least be a possibility. They're rare, but they exist.
So bottom line, there is very much debate as to the origins tot the current warming trend. Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year. Like I said though, I'd rather not find out the hard way either.
If you think of multiple relevant key words you'll usually find exactally what you want within the first page... well, at least that's what I've always done and always gotten. Search engines have really usefull rules, not many but they do help alot, quotes for phrases, or + or - prefixes...
Right, and I consider myself rather skilled in the art of search engine massaging.:) This more for the folks who aren't so inclined. Even for the rest of us, there are sometimes subtle relationships between results that, even for we "experts," such a system would become a very powerful tool.
What's your problem with internet business in general? Is it really so fucking hard to click on that link to make a few cents for a struggling enterprise? I bet you block ads and cookies, too. Fucking cheapskate communist.
I know OSDN is a "struggling enterprise," and both you and g'parent are trolls, but I'll respond anyway. I think the problem is not one of supporting/., which most people will do, it's a matter of journalistic integrity. The ability to discern ads (or "sponsored" stories) from real stories is critical. The LA Times got roasted a few years back when it did a "story" on the Lakers' new arena, which turned out to be paid for.
So the question is, is slashdot expected to have any journalistic integrity? If so, then people have a right to complain about stories that look paid for. I haven't heard Taco's party line regarding paid-for stories lately.
Well, no, this AIX crap is about trying to get $3 billion out of IBM.
Please, everyone including SCO knows that will NOT happen. I would bet their plan does not involve the acquisition of 3 billion dollars. If that somehow accidentally happened, I'm sure they'd love it, but if theit plan consisted of the suit alone, they'd be moving with it, not playing the PR game/
It's going to take SCO a long time to get $3 billion out of Linux users at $1300 a pop.
Not...really. Considering that MS only makes $200 max per install, even considering that linux has a much lower install base than windows, the numbers are staggering. Particularly since they don't have to lift a finger to get the cash. Think about it. Are there a million machines running linux? Yes? There's a billion. So if that worked, which it won't, there would actually be a pile of cash.
But what this is really about is extorting IBM. SCO knows damned well that few companies are going to pay $1300 to use linux. And if they can sow enough fear, they can hurt IBM's sales of linux.
So given that they can't win the suit, and they won't get much revenue from linux simply because no one will pay it, where does their revenue come from? By extorting IBM. Their fortunes in this case revolve around two things: 1) keeping their stock price high by lying to mentally retarded investors who actually think they're going to get $3B, and 2) getting IBM to possibly buy them out to keep SCO from spreading fears about linux, which would (in their mind) cripple the market IBM is attempting to dominate.
Actually, they are. Computer World published and article on it called SCO's Shell Game. Also found other tidbits while Googling(tm) around. They make a claim, their stock goes up, they issue new shares and buy stuff by trading the new shares.
Nice article! And they did it just like I figured - acquisition using their newly valuable stock.
Naturally, this doesn't mean IBM is in on it, but it does support the idea that SCO was just using this ruse for free money. Clearly they're using their stock price to get stuff for free.
Now, I don't say the parent is absolutely correct, but there is some real validity to his claims. Not necessarily probable, but very possible. The parent is not that far off my line of reasoning.
Like I said, there was a lot of interesting stuff in his post. He was right on (evidently!) about SCO using their "smoke and mirrors" stock price to acquire real assets.
IBM and SCO make it known that IBM is thinking of buying SCO. Instead, SCO sues IBM. SCO's stock price goes up. SCO's owners dump stock (getting rich) and SCO uses the inflated stock price to buy up small companies. Once SCO has all the pieces in place, IBM suddenly forces things into court and SCO is blown away. SCO stock plummets. *THEN* IBM buys them for a basement bargin price.
I tell ya, it's definitely wacko, but it's not completely retarded, I have to say that. The one key is that when SCO does all this buying up of small companies, it would have to be done with SCO *stock* - I'm sure that's what you intended - which would actually be plausible in their situation, since they're a stock-rich/cash-poor company.
There are two problems I see with the theory. First, I don't see SCO taking over any small companies right now.;) Second, the time frames are a little off. SCO would need time to perform all these takeovers, as those never proceed quickly. Second, IBM can't afford the lawsuit spectre to last too long, as there's the threat that companies will get scared of linux and such, fleeing into the arms of Sun or MS. That would make the whole scheme counterproductive.
So I don't think that's what's going on here. That said, it *is* a pretty nice scheme, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop up elsewhere, assuming it hasn't already. I think it would be outrageously illegal, but might not be impossible to pull off. The only real problem I see from a practical standpoint is trust - when the lawsuits start, puffing up the value of the smaller company to be taken over, they gain an advantage that could be acted upon if they decide to make the fake lawsuit real.
They'd almost have to give the larger company some faked "smoking gun" evidence that gave them a clear "out" of the lawsuit, if filed. In this situation, it would be like some SCO developer last year sending a memo saying something like, "Hey, have fun with the JFS code I posted to the kernel dev team yesterday. Free of charge compliments of Caldera."
But I will say, it's not impossible.
Man, I have got to stop drinking 10 diet cherry cokes while on medicine for a head cold before I post. =)
A better solution (and it appears to be the one that IBM is using) is to go ahead 'business as usual', then if SCO harrasses their customers, get an injunction against them for interference, which would (probably) get SCO shut down for good.
Right, but this AIX crap is really just a proxy war for the fight against linux users, and everyone knows it. If it weren't for that, I'd agree with you. However, as of now, SCO hasn't made any legal moves against linux users, they've just been playing a PR game. As it stands, "business as usual" is NOT good for linux users.
IBM needs to unify those two fights from a legal perspective, while SCO would prefer to keep them legally separate, only drawing parallels between them as they want in the media. SCO's fight against linux users depends on them having some success in avoiding the legal arena, where they have little chance. Every day this stays out of court is a win for SCO.
That's why I think IBM should expedite this thing. Because if it never goes to court, SCO wins through erosion of linux marketshare in enterprise applications, as well as the potential for revenue through linux "licensing." Additionally, they depend on their inflated stock price to finance this game and provide a windfall in the event they sell out of their position. Giving them a legal setback would really hurt their stock price, and would cripple them in terms of their strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point - how about, 92 is the heaviest element occurring naturally in a 4.5B-year-old planet?
Of course, given that some of these really heavy ones have half-lives many times less than a second (this one is 110 microseconds), it seems fair to say that, for all intents and purposes, none is left. If a supernovae somehow made 10^10,000,000 atoms of this, around one atom would be left after an hour. Note that I don't think there are any stars this large.
End result is that, by the time any planet has formed in which this stuff can occur, it will have decayed.
Yep. And if I were playing devil's advocate, I would ask why the temp increase occurred in 2 bursts - 1920 to 1930, and 1980 or so until today. Between the 30's and the 80's, things were relatively calm.
Now, there are a ton of potential explanations, and this doesn't suggest that we *aren't* responsible, but it isn't the sort of "no-doubt" trend that one would expect for the claims to be completely airtight. And that's all I said originally - there's enough stuff here that's not rock solid that we shouldn't start ridiculing anyone who doesn't come up with teh "correct" answer. But let's also put it this way - I don't own an SUV, and I never will. I wouldn't mind owning a hybrid next time I'm in the car market.
For God's sake - what kernel was that? Because it hasn't been until somewhere in the 2.4 that SCO claims this crap. 2.2, I believe, is supposed to be untainted. That old Caldera distro isn't relevant here.
That's because no one gives a rat's ass what happens in Canada, eh?
Everyone will take credit. You'll see Hamas, PLO, Al Queda, Sinn Fein, the Bloods, Cryps, Freemasons, and a few Little League teams take credit for this.
Just wondering, but why? Never been to LA, have you?
I was thinking Enron! What's that? Wrong year? Oh.
Hey, no problem. Personally, I think the problem there, on *both* sides of the debate, is the word "believe." Sounds a bit too dogmatic for me, and that seems to be a large portion of the problem.
I also want to make clear: I have no problem with skepticism regarding human induced global warming. If you couldn't tell, I'm (if not skeptical) then at least willing to listen to well-thought-out arguments against human-induced warming made by scientists who aren't paid by oil companies (yes, there are some, in my department in fact).
I could tell, actually, and it's honestly refreshing to see. I have absolutely no problem with the stance you've taken on this problem - frankly, I think the problem is that things you (as the climatological community) say in a reserved way are amplified by the media and groups that want to believe specific things.
What I don't appreciate are the arguments of those who want to avoid the policy impications of potential warming because those implications could hurt their pocket books in the short term. I realize that this is an understandable reaction, but it's also one that I profoundly disagree with.
I agree with that too - but it *can* be a bit dangerous too. Do you automatically distrust anyone who espouses "contrarian" results? I imagine you don't - but I think too many people do. Not all skeptics are "oil men," but it actually seems to be a well-held belief that they are.
So from a policy perspective, I guess I am far more frustrated than from a scientific perspective.
What, you mean how the oil industry has fought mass transit and alternative industry sources? Naaah. ;)
Personally, I would be happy to see funding given legitimate researchers whose past publications have cast doubt on human induced global warming.
I think it's even necessary. Science (and I mean this broadly) gets too incestuous. Certainly is in my field (and if you haven't guessed, we've published contrarian positions before. And had to publish them in lesser journals because the people whose research we were questioning got to review our papers).
Back to the scientific questions: From my perspective, the extreme warming in the last 150 years seems pretty watertight.
That it's occurred? Of course - though I would still wonder if it's extreme with a little "e" or a big "E." From there, it's a question of what it implies.
That would be 80 150-year periods.
That's not bad. As a person who likes to get reams of stats before making a decision (I like thousands of samples), it leaves wiggle room - but there's obviously a pretty good chance you're right. Like I said, I never said it was *wrong.* But there have been periods of extreme climate wierdness (like the mini-ice-age in Europe in, what, the late 1600's? So these things can happen - and *do* happen. So you're right, the question is what's the chance it's luck?
If you have other reasonable hypotheses, I would love to hear them.
This is fuzzy, because it's off the top of my head, but I would like to see the lag between fossil-fuel-burning and human-induced warming. I know the latter number does not exist - obviously, that would be the answer to your question if it did - but even an estimate would be fine. Because the change in fossil fuel burning has been exponential, the change in CO2 must be too. And from that, *if* the direct relationship is to be believed, most of that increase in the last 150 yrs. should have been in the last 50. I know this data is as noisy as can be and there's no control group, but there should still be an effect. If it's flat, or otherwise-shaped, I'd be more likely to believe the "random fluctuation" theory. If the exponential tracks, then you may have a convert.
That's my ultimate point. While global warming is logical from a first order interpretation of CO2, it's an incredibly complicated issue and anyone who says that the matter is rock-solid is being ridiculous. So when you compare that to cold-fusion, which *was* thoroughly debunked (at least as claimed), and for which no research is ongoing, is very much a disservice and a tad insulting, I imagine, to those people who have predicted climate models that come out with little to no change. And obviously the literal interpretation wasn't intended, I don't assume you're an idiot.
I am not certain, of course. I'm willing to look at alternate evidence if it exists - but I find the evidence and the consensus of climatologists convincing.
Convinced for the whole deal? We're responsible for *all* of the current increase in temperature, and that this can be extrapolated? Because there's no concensus even among climatologists for that. That's the problem here - it's not as if there's a really *clear* answer even from the somewhat pro-warming camp. So in a way, you seem more convinced than they are, unless I'm overestimating your definition of "convinced."
So you're saying if you set up a rand-generator and it spits out {1,2,3,4,5,6...} the first time you use it you won't check it? ;)
I understand what you mean though. I love how people try to stay away from runs of numbers when filling out their lottery tickets.
I am a scientist and have the ability to evaluate a piece of research on its own merits, thanks. So no I don't. I'll make up my own mind.
If you had bothered to read it you would have found that it is a faq that does indeed link to published work. Not that it matters; the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. It is up to you to try to find some evidence supporting your statement - which I am calling crap.
This is slashdot. I publish real papers, I don't have time to perform research to convince someone who goes by the name Pentagram for chrissakes.
I am a scientist. I am not a climatologist, but I seem to know more about the science than you do judging from your volcano comment.
Really? Where'd you get your PhD?
I am certainly not an expert in climatology, but I accept that cold fusion is probably crap, that there is no significant evidence for telepathy, that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, and that human activity is causing significant changes in the climate.
There is no active research ongoing for any of the above except warming. Second, global warming has not been tested, for obvious reasons of not owning a time machine. This means that you are convinced by an UNTESTED THEORY. For that reason, the models better all line up perfectly for the research to be rock-solid. They don't. Even among the people who have come up with warming trends, they don't agree. Is this enough to make me believe the contrary (cooling or stasis) viewpoint? No. Is it enough to make me doubt their conclusions? Yes, and it should be enough for anyone who has actually read their results. In this thread I've heard from one climatologist. He freely admits that, while the "best guess" is that humans affect the environment, this is far from conclusively proven. My guess is that you spend more time reading dogma than actual research, which is why you're so convinced. I readily admit I don't know what's goin on with warming. Your certainty casts doubt on your objectivity, which is typcially a problem.
You claimed to be an expert and then made a fundamental error, and you glibly accused people of intellectual dishonesty without any evidence, two of the things that significantly piss me off.
First, I never accused anyone of dishonesty. Re-read what I said and my response to the actual climatologist in the thread. No one is being dishonest, it's simply a polarized debate, and people take sides. This naturally affects the publication cycle, in this as in every other similar field. I've had it happen to me in a field not at all related to warming. It's part of academics.
Second, I claimed to be a scientist, not an expert (though on slashdot it's better than the average geek). I know a lot about climatology, but I have the confidence to admit my fallability. If people making fundamental errors piss you off, you need to learn 1) tolerance, and 2) the fact that you aren't perfect either. Either way, getting pissed about a normal discussion isn't a good personal characteristic. Might want to work on that.
No, I'm saying it's more difficult to get those results published, because you're going against the grain of the "accepted" viewpoint.
And you're claiming that such is proof that we can't trust the majority?
I'm saying that, if things were fair, it might not be such a clear majority. I'm not impugning any particular group, or person. Simply saying that the statistics of who believes what end up being skewed by artificially culling part of the population.
That researchers all over the US are busy propagating the man-made warming myth due to a search for funding..
Wow, talk about words in mouth. "Myth" implies something that is readily believed and is certainly false. Man-made warming has not been proven false, certainly, and I never said it was.
from the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress?
Last I checked, one does not submit grant proposals to the white house nor congress. If one were to use the old political barometer, I would say that the typical funding agencies are certainly not right-leaning (except almost certainly any of the defense-related ones like DARPA). NSF and NIH, for example, are a tad left of center if anything, but I'm *NOT* saying that such is evidence or indicative of any sort of bias.
Any paraticular reason you seem to be so angry about this? Sheesh.
Naturally. We're talking about whether man is responsible for either of the above - either 1) the current increase is due to us, 2) whether future trends will involve warming, and 3) whether those two are related.
One point that suggests greater human influence is the precipitous rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years or so. We have never seen a change in global temperatures quite this rapid, going back thousands of years.
True, but if we're considering blocks of 150 years over thousands of years (how many thousands), we're talking about maybe a few tens of 150-year blocks. To me, that in itself doesn't constitute proof. There is also the question of whether we're addressing this from a policy or scientific standpoint. If policy, it doesn't matter what the source is, we need to get this under control doing whatever we can. Scientifically, it's more of an intellectual question, related more to prediction of future trends.
Regarding the so-called grant effect: the reasoning behind this theory is questionable at best. First, most of the grants used for academic research on global warming come from government organizations (NASA, NSF, etc.) that tend to be fairly unbiased in their funding.
Talk to your advisor on that one. The grant distribution process is anything *but* unbiased, in any field, simply because anyone evaluating the grants is also typically performing research in the field. If you've been lucky enough to avoid that mess, I'm happy for you, but I've gotten nailed by it. It's particularly a problem when your boss has a higher profile than you'd like.
You don't apply for a grant to fund research denying global warming.
No, but if that was your conclusion in your last paper, that's effectively what your next grant proposal says. People have memories, and it takes a broad-minded person to thumbs-up a grant or research for someone who published results contrary to their own. Too many scientists see that as some sort of a personal attack. And, unfortunately, sometimes it is.
Whatever the case may be, calling global warming some kind of a liberal conspiracy theory insults both the integrity and intelligence of the thousands of researchers world-wide who study it.
That is well overstating what I actually said. It's not a conspiracy, and I never said it was. It's simply the fact that in any field where there is a very polarized debate (like this one), people tend to take sides. And, those with the majority tend to reinforce each other, being nicer to each other at grant review and publishing time. Those in the minority tend to get the opposite treatment, and eventually don't get large grants or publication in good journals. It's just human nature, and one need not invoke a conspiracy theory to address it. Though interestingly, from what you said, you don't seem to have a problem invoking that argument for those taking the other side.
I want to be clear here - I'm not saying that any of the pro-warming research is bunk. I'm simply saying that basing your conclusion about global warming on which side publishes more papers in Science and Nature is a faulty premise.
So is global warming happening? Almost certainly. Do humans play a role in this? Probably, but how much is still a big question. Are you right to say that we should take steps to ameliorate potential impacts before it's too late? In my opinion, yes.
And as I said previously, I completely agree with the first and third point, and would say the jury is out on the second. I think you got the wrong impression - I'm not militant on this issue, I'm just tired of hearing the "global warming must be true because more climatologists say so than not" argument.
By definition, white noise is completely random. The question is whether the noise is completely white. ;)
The problem is that for encryption purposes you may need some huge random numbers. If you want to do that from an analog solution you'll have to take your samples closer and closer together, until the numbers become less random. If you start sampling sound 1 million times a second, any two values next to each other my be really close and actually predictable.
One solution to that is to only keep the least significant digits from any measurement. So if I take a 32-bit floating-point measurement, I would keep, say, only the last four bits. Increases the sampling requirements but helps the randomness.
The only numbers that generates is 42,69,503,and 23. I figure in 2 more posts you might get 17 too.
No it doesn't. First, any group can buy some scientist on any issue. That's a given - if Shell wanted, they could buy a scientist. The problem is that this person would not get published, and would not get tenure. You forget that the same groups doing peer-review for the grant process are the same ones doing it for the publication process.
So if I take Shell's money, I'm obviously not going to cite that fact in a publication I submit. If I claim no global warming (or even cooling!) and I don't have any governmental funding agencies in my acknowledgements, they'll figure it out. And have fun publishing in the Journal of the Lithuanian Climatological Society. Because nowhere else will take you.
I'm not saying it is, but when you have a cliquish peer-review process that supports each other, you can't determine an answer from a majority-rules consensus. Note that I did *not* say that global warming is incorrect; I merely said that the appearance of a vocal majority does not mean that it is necessarily correct. Big differece. And those claims aren't unsubstantiated - I'm a grad student in the sciences, and I have a good bit of knowledge of the peer review process. My advisor has done work on global warming.
If you had indeed "studied this issue intensely", you would have discovered that this is a myth. CO2 released through human activity dwarfs that released through volcanoes (see here for example).
Nice link from what, brighton73.freeserve.co.uk? Is that peer reviewed? No? Thought not. I'll read real evidence, but don't give me that tripe.
Please, in the future, don't talk bollocks, don't throw baseless accusations, research your claims, and don't claim to be an authority on something you clearly know little about.
Are you a scientist? If not, I likely know more about it than you do. From your post and your references, it's pretty clear you're dogmatic about the issue, you have no knowledge of science or scientific method, and you completely lack objectivity. And the degree to which you have become offended at a rational post (mine) speaks volumes.
Yes, and then you wouldn't get published or tenure. That's not an option. If it were, don't you think someone would take them up on it, even to do spurious research? The fact that it's not happening should say something - and it's not regarding the ultimate answer of global warming.
Look at anybody who has written a book arguing against global warming.
Books mean shit. They're not peer reviewed. In the sciences, writing a book does nothing for the career of an academic. Those books, from either side, aren't research, and they're not accepted as such.
I'm also a global warming skeptic and that's the only argument I buy. Hedge on the side of assuming it's our fault, because by the time we're sure it's going to be way too late.
The scientific consensus is strong. Perfect, no, but outside of right-wing talk show hosts and oil company shills, there is no real doubt that human activity is altering the climate.
Having studied this issue intensely, that is flat wrong. There are two effects going on. First, modeling climate is exceptionally difficult, and the most difficult aspect is predicting the activity of clouds. On one hand, they reflect light (cooling), but on the other hand, they act as a blanket (warming). Depending on the thickness and density of the clouds, these parameters are traded off. So scientists have to predict more than the levels of CO2 produced. And it ain't easy.
The second effect is the "grant effect." All grants are peer-reviewed - that is, when you apply for money, people in your field decide if your current and prior work makes you a valid candidate for getting $$$. Now, obviously, this gets very cliqueish, and if you consistently advocate a contrarian position (ie, global cooling or stasis), you will have a very hard time getting money. In other words, if you are a climatologist and you don't predict warming, have fun getting funding. In this way, the "answer" in the global warming debate is shaped by who can still get funding, and this is a very dogmatic, polarized field. And on this, the liberals are every bit as biased as the oil company asshats. The people I would listen to are the ones not blustering on either side, but who consider cooling/stasis to at least be a possibility. They're rare, but they exist.
So bottom line, there is very much debate as to the origins tot the current warming trend. Especially when you consider that a single decent volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than man does in a year. Like I said though, I'd rather not find out the hard way either.
Right, and I consider myself rather skilled in the art of search engine massaging. :) This more for the folks who aren't so inclined. Even for the rest of us, there are sometimes subtle relationships between results that, even for we "experts," such a system would become a very powerful tool.
I know OSDN is a "struggling enterprise," and both you and g'parent are trolls, but I'll respond anyway. I think the problem is not one of supporting /., which most people will do, it's a matter of journalistic integrity. The ability to discern ads (or "sponsored" stories) from real stories is critical. The LA Times got roasted a few years back when it did a "story" on the Lakers' new arena, which turned out to be paid for.
So the question is, is slashdot expected to have any journalistic integrity? If so, then people have a right to complain about stories that look paid for. I haven't heard Taco's party line regarding paid-for stories lately.
Please, everyone including SCO knows that will NOT happen. I would bet their plan does not involve the acquisition of 3 billion dollars. If that somehow accidentally happened, I'm sure they'd love it, but if theit plan consisted of the suit alone, they'd be moving with it, not playing the PR game/
It's going to take SCO a long time to get $3 billion out of Linux users at $1300 a pop.
Not...really. Considering that MS only makes $200 max per install, even considering that linux has a much lower install base than windows, the numbers are staggering. Particularly since they don't have to lift a finger to get the cash. Think about it. Are there a million machines running linux? Yes? There's a billion. So if that worked, which it won't, there would actually be a pile of cash.
But what this is really about is extorting IBM. SCO knows damned well that few companies are going to pay $1300 to use linux. And if they can sow enough fear, they can hurt IBM's sales of linux.
So given that they can't win the suit, and they won't get much revenue from linux simply because no one will pay it, where does their revenue come from? By extorting IBM. Their fortunes in this case revolve around two things: 1) keeping their stock price high by lying to mentally retarded investors who actually think they're going to get $3B, and 2) getting IBM to possibly buy them out to keep SCO from spreading fears about linux, which would (in their mind) cripple the market IBM is attempting to dominate.
Nice article! And they did it just like I figured - acquisition using their newly valuable stock.
Naturally, this doesn't mean IBM is in on it, but it does support the idea that SCO was just using this ruse for free money. Clearly they're using their stock price to get stuff for free.
Now, I don't say the parent is absolutely correct, but there is some real validity to his claims. Not necessarily probable, but very possible. The parent is not that far off my line of reasoning.
Like I said, there was a lot of interesting stuff in his post. He was right on (evidently!) about SCO using their "smoke and mirrors" stock price to acquire real assets.
I tell ya, it's definitely wacko, but it's not completely retarded, I have to say that. The one key is that when SCO does all this buying up of small companies, it would have to be done with SCO *stock* - I'm sure that's what you intended - which would actually be plausible in their situation, since they're a stock-rich/cash-poor company.
There are two problems I see with the theory. First, I don't see SCO taking over any small companies right now. ;) Second, the time frames are a little off. SCO would need time to perform all these takeovers, as those never proceed quickly. Second, IBM can't afford the lawsuit spectre to last too long, as there's the threat that companies will get scared of linux and such, fleeing into the arms of Sun or MS. That would make the whole scheme counterproductive.
So I don't think that's what's going on here. That said, it *is* a pretty nice scheme, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop up elsewhere, assuming it hasn't already. I think it would be outrageously illegal, but might not be impossible to pull off. The only real problem I see from a practical standpoint is trust - when the lawsuits start, puffing up the value of the smaller company to be taken over, they gain an advantage that could be acted upon if they decide to make the fake lawsuit real.
They'd almost have to give the larger company some faked "smoking gun" evidence that gave them a clear "out" of the lawsuit, if filed. In this situation, it would be like some SCO developer last year sending a memo saying something like, "Hey, have fun with the JFS code I posted to the kernel dev team yesterday. Free of charge compliments of Caldera."
But I will say, it's not impossible.
Man, I have got to stop drinking 10 diet cherry cokes while on medicine for a head cold before I post. =)
I think that would be a good policy for sure.
Right, but this AIX crap is really just a proxy war for the fight against linux users, and everyone knows it. If it weren't for that, I'd agree with you. However, as of now, SCO hasn't made any legal moves against linux users, they've just been playing a PR game. As it stands, "business as usual" is NOT good for linux users.
IBM needs to unify those two fights from a legal perspective, while SCO would prefer to keep them legally separate, only drawing parallels between them as they want in the media. SCO's fight against linux users depends on them having some success in avoiding the legal arena, where they have little chance. Every day this stays out of court is a win for SCO.
That's why I think IBM should expedite this thing. Because if it never goes to court, SCO wins through erosion of linux marketshare in enterprise applications, as well as the potential for revenue through linux "licensing." Additionally, they depend on their inflated stock price to finance this game and provide a windfall in the event they sell out of their position. Giving them a legal setback would really hurt their stock price, and would cripple them in terms of their strategy.