If you read nothing else, please at least read this Wikipedia article.
TL/DR:
The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism to solar variation. In the 1960s, the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human activities that generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming.
How would it affect the planet over a mere 2 centuries than over ten thousands of years as in history?
Now you are talking more sense. Before you were talking millions, when we had an ice age a few thousand years ago. But even over centuries, we have significant warming and cooling events. No one is really sure the exact cause - there are many possible influences. That Wikipedia article lays out the proposed explanations. But the point is, until about 1950 you can't point at humans as being responsible for the majority of the climate change. And while scientists started to strongly suspect human-released greenhouse gasses were influencing the climate, it wasn't until the late 80s when the scale began to be understood - and it wasn't until the late 90s when you could start to isolate the human from the natural causes definitively.
When actually was the IPCC founded?
1988, built upon a prior group formed in 1985. Fits really well with the timeline I outlined above.
An international science agency was founded because America denied AGW
OR, it was founded because that is when the science seemed to indicate the scale of the problem.
And now: America is turning it around!
Yes, it is very frustrating. But telling people lies about the science hurts Americans like me trying to argue for the science.
And we know that since minimum 100 years.
You keep saying this. The claim in total bullshit. They had no idea that mankind was altering the climate in 1918. They barely had the equipment to measure it. A large section of the globe was still unexplored by people who considered themselves followers of science. It doesn't pass anything resembling a sniff test, and you repeating this obvious crap is making it very hard to defend people saying that the science is full of shit. Why would you make this claim?
We live in a time where a scientist has to defend his profession, very sad.
Agreed. So why are you undermining the side you profess to support?
Me? You literally are talking out your ass. You went all rah-rah nationalistic on me, and now you are inventing a new history to support that absurd point of view. I'm beginning to think you are an AGW denier doing some kind of a false flag thing to make people who believe the science look like idiots.
As they were popularly implemented, they were simply not morally defensible. It is a promise made by someone who will be in no position to make good on the promise. The only winners in the pension system were the companies who got away with "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" and the union reps who brought home big "wins" for their membership that would not be around to see through.
If you want to make them morally defensible, you need to basically make them into annuities.
There are new-ass spectrum analyzers that know how to upload to IBM's cloud?
The oldest-ass spectrum analyzer we have still has GPIB-out. The newer ones have ethernet. Yeah, you can shuffle things with USB but that gets old really fast, depending on how repetitive the task is.
Pensions were immoral - be glad they are gone. Once people realized what was going on and made companies actually pay for the benefits they were promising, they went away... shocking! Now accounting standards are changing for the government and you'll see the same thing happen in the public domain.
The greenhouse effect was known, but AGW wasn't definitively isolated from natural warming until around the turn of the millenium. Though to be fair, most climate scientists already "knew" it and the ICC was giving greenhouse gas warnings as early as 1990.
I recall seeing error bars wide enough to include (at least momentary) cooling. If my recollection is faulty, my apologies - whether the warming was very slight or negative is not really germane to my point. The mean trends were always up, even when the low estimates of CO2 output were used. Remember that it wasn't until the late 90s that papers started to appear demonstrating that it was even _possible_ to separate anthropomorphic effects from natural effects.*
I think a reasonable person could still be an AGW skeptic in the 90s - now not so much.
* e.g. "The Potential Effect of GCM Uncertainties and Internal Atmospheric Variability on Anthropogenic Signal Detection", TIM P. BARNETT, et al
The electronics supply chain is full of American parts and IP. You could probably build a competitive electronic doodad without any American content, but you'd need to do that from the get-go and until recently they had no reason to do this. It will take many months or years to put out new versions of their products - and in the meantime, they have no suppliers to keep manufacturing going.
I assume you either get paid to do this, or you simply can't be bothered to read up on the results from even a single model. Every model has a fairly large range, but - just like the hurricane predictions - that range has narrowed with time. In the 90s, some models even allowed for some cooling - but that result has disappeared as the uncertainty continues to get better. Every single model gives a somewhat different result, but they all now agree on a general upward trend. And when you use CO2 as an independent variable, all of the models agree that this has a very significant effect. Without exception (and if I'm mistaken, please correct me), every single scientist who has planted their stake on the "denial" side of the issue is NOT involved in actually building a climate model.
So, I'm definitely on the same side as you in this debate and think that the phones should not have any kind of "back door" or anything like that. But....
You give criminals way too much credit. In general, they aren't thinking it that far through.
This could be good, if they handle errors well. If they use the same default "fail silently" practice as they do with VBA functions, then it will be just as dangerous as those are.
NYC seemed more germane to the discussion than some arbitrary city. If housing prices aren't an issue, than AirBNB isn't going to have much effect one way or another. If housing prices are an issue, then people will be living wherever they can afford - including immediately adjacent to industrial sites.
I have a colleague who was having trouble selling his house. From the corner of his backyard, you can see the local nuke plant off in the distance. His neighbors don't all have a clear view, and the houses without a view had no trouble selling. People are essentially ignorant of what they cannot see, even out in the sticks.
Haha, yes, well... teleportation would be a game changer:) Even more than Musk's self-driving cars, I'll let others do the beta testing!
Back in reality, the problem with all forms of public transit in low density areas like suburbs is that the catchment area can be much larger, but the density is ridiculously low. So you put in stations with giant parking lots and instead of walking to the train people drive, increasing their commute times. The speed of the train becomes less and less important. So in theory you could put up a new train station out in the 'burbs with city-style housing density and the rent balance would go down as you say - but practically this is not what happens as the existing 'burb dwellers go into a full-court zoning press. I live in a suburb within walking distance of Philadelphia, and they only just now zoned the areas around the train stations as mixed-use... and even then, the buildings are capped at 3 or 4 stories. The stations have been there for over 100 years and serve something ridiculously low like 400 people per day (they also will not allow a parking garage to be built, so the small surface lot and residential streets are all of the parking that is available).
In fact, if you take their 1%:1.58% over a seven year period number as accurate, it is very close to my low estimate of 0.3% based on a $3000/month rent. The effects here are quite small.
That presumes an even distribution. It wasn't. FTFA: Airbnb listings were heavily concentrated in parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn and had a greater impact on these neighborhoods.
That might affect the x axis somewhat. We're still talking about only 10,000 units in the most densely populated part of the US. The rents are even higher in those locations, so I was probably very conservative with my numbers in the y axis and the real effect is probably even less than the 0.3-0.5% that I stated.
You seem to think "linear" means 1:1 ratio.
No, I don't think it means a 1:1 ratio. I mean it seems like the relationship between supply and demand is going to be more or less linear in such a small region. Whether we adjust supply or adjust demand won't significantly change whatever discussion we have going forward from that point. Both will raise prices, and by a similar amount. You have a specific, hard number to work with - you don't need to wax philosophical about whether demand went up or supply went down - it's not germane to the discussion.
There's good reason for people to want to protect their real estate investments
No argument there. People are working in their self-interest. I have attended zoning meetings and proposed changes based on protecting my own property. But that doesn't mean the changes that I pushed for were "fair" - they simply protected my self-interest.
Good points, though I think improving transport links will still increase rents wherever the people commute from. Put in a link from Staten Island to Midtown and the rents in Midtown might drop slightly, but the rents near the new station on Staten Island will go through the roof.
I guess I should say more generally that economic activity which generates demand but does not increase supply will tend to increase rents.
I'm violating all my Slashdot sanity rules, but why not - it's lunch.
Semantic argument - go!
The supply/demand curve can be approximated as linear in the tiny little range we are discussing. This is because the average rent in Manhattan/Brooklyn is in the $2000 - $3000 range and according to the study we're talking about a $10 delta from that each year.... so our Y axis is moving in the 0.3 - 0.5% range due to AirBNB. Our X axis is dealing with a delta of around 10,000 units out of more than a million between Manhattan and Brooklyn - so we are in the 1% range. A delta of 1% along the X axis and 0.5% along the Y axis is going to follow something very similar to a linear trend.
Given a linear trend, it does not matter whether you slide up the chart because you increased demand by 1% or decreased supply by 1%. It simply does not matter - it is a purely semantic game and you are arguing about a fact that just has no consequence.
If we were talking about the hotel market and the effect of AirBNB on the price or occupancy of hotel rooms, then hell yes, the added supply of 10,000 rooms would be very significant. But we're not, so you are calling me names for no good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read nothing else, please at least read this Wikipedia article.
TL/DR:
How would it affect the planet over a mere 2 centuries than over ten thousands of years as in history?
Now you are talking more sense. Before you were talking millions, when we had an ice age a few thousand years ago. But even over centuries, we have significant warming and cooling events. No one is really sure the exact cause - there are many possible influences. That Wikipedia article lays out the proposed explanations. But the point is, until about 1950 you can't point at humans as being responsible for the majority of the climate change. And while scientists started to strongly suspect human-released greenhouse gasses were influencing the climate, it wasn't until the late 80s when the scale began to be understood - and it wasn't until the late 90s when you could start to isolate the human from the natural causes definitively.
When actually was the IPCC founded?
1988, built upon a prior group formed in 1985. Fits really well with the timeline I outlined above.
An international science agency was founded because America denied AGW
OR, it was founded because that is when the science seemed to indicate the scale of the problem.
And now: America is turning it around!
Yes, it is very frustrating. But telling people lies about the science hurts Americans like me trying to argue for the science.
And we know that since minimum 100 years.
You keep saying this. The claim in total bullshit. They had no idea that mankind was altering the climate in 1918. They barely had the equipment to measure it. A large section of the globe was still unexplored by people who considered themselves followers of science. It doesn't pass anything resembling a sniff test, and you repeating this obvious crap is making it very hard to defend people saying that the science is full of shit. Why would you make this claim?
We live in a time where a scientist has to defend his profession, very sad.
Agreed. So why are you undermining the side you profess to support?
Me? You literally are talking out your ass. You went all rah-rah nationalistic on me, and now you are inventing a new history to support that absurd point of view. I'm beginning to think you are an AGW denier doing some kind of a false flag thing to make people who believe the science look like idiots.
Are you serious? You can't think of any non-human warming factors? I think I've stumbled into a religious or political argument.
No, you just never thought very hard about it.
As they were popularly implemented, they were simply not morally defensible. It is a promise made by someone who will be in no position to make good on the promise. The only winners in the pension system were the companies who got away with "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" and the union reps who brought home big "wins" for their membership that would not be around to see through.
If you want to make them morally defensible, you need to basically make them into annuities.
Don't make promises you can't keep.
There are new-ass spectrum analyzers that know how to upload to IBM's cloud?
The oldest-ass spectrum analyzer we have still has GPIB-out. The newer ones have ethernet. Yeah, you can shuffle things with USB but that gets old really fast, depending on how repetitive the task is.
Are you serious?
Pensions were immoral - be glad they are gone. Once people realized what was going on and made companies actually pay for the benefits they were promising, they went away... shocking! Now accounting standards are changing for the government and you'll see the same thing happen in the public domain.
The greenhouse effect was known, but AGW wasn't definitively isolated from natural warming until around the turn of the millenium. Though to be fair, most climate scientists already "knew" it and the ICC was giving greenhouse gas warnings as early as 1990.
Listen, same team.
I recall seeing error bars wide enough to include (at least momentary) cooling. If my recollection is faulty, my apologies - whether the warming was very slight or negative is not really germane to my point. The mean trends were always up, even when the low estimates of CO2 output were used. Remember that it wasn't until the late 90s that papers started to appear demonstrating that it was even _possible_ to separate anthropomorphic effects from natural effects.*
I think a reasonable person could still be an AGW skeptic in the 90s - now not so much.
* e.g. "The Potential Effect of GCM Uncertainties and Internal Atmospheric Variability on Anthropogenic Signal Detection", TIM P. BARNETT, et al
The electronics supply chain is full of American parts and IP. You could probably build a competitive electronic doodad without any American content, but you'd need to do that from the get-go and until recently they had no reason to do this. It will take many months or years to put out new versions of their products - and in the meantime, they have no suppliers to keep manufacturing going.
I assume you either get paid to do this, or you simply can't be bothered to read up on the results from even a single model. Every model has a fairly large range, but - just like the hurricane predictions - that range has narrowed with time. In the 90s, some models even allowed for some cooling - but that result has disappeared as the uncertainty continues to get better. Every single model gives a somewhat different result, but they all now agree on a general upward trend. And when you use CO2 as an independent variable, all of the models agree that this has a very significant effect. Without exception (and if I'm mistaken, please correct me), every single scientist who has planted their stake on the "denial" side of the issue is NOT involved in actually building a climate model.
something that tells you, this person has more money than sense.
C'mon, make the marketing departments at least pretend to work.
So, I'm definitely on the same side as you in this debate and think that the phones should not have any kind of "back door" or anything like that. But....
You give criminals way too much credit. In general, they aren't thinking it that far through.
Regex is already available in Excel through a reference to "Microsoft VBScript Regular Expressions 5.5".
This could be good, if they handle errors well. If they use the same default "fail silently" practice as they do with VBA functions, then it will be just as dangerous as those are.
NYC seemed more germane to the discussion than some arbitrary city. If housing prices aren't an issue, than AirBNB isn't going to have much effect one way or another. If housing prices are an issue, then people will be living wherever they can afford - including immediately adjacent to industrial sites.
I have a colleague who was having trouble selling his house. From the corner of his backyard, you can see the local nuke plant off in the distance. His neighbors don't all have a clear view, and the houses without a view had no trouble selling. People are essentially ignorant of what they cannot see, even out in the sticks.
Haha, yes, well... teleportation would be a game changer :) Even more than Musk's self-driving cars, I'll let others do the beta testing!
Back in reality, the problem with all forms of public transit in low density areas like suburbs is that the catchment area can be much larger, but the density is ridiculously low. So you put in stations with giant parking lots and instead of walking to the train people drive, increasing their commute times. The speed of the train becomes less and less important. So in theory you could put up a new train station out in the 'burbs with city-style housing density and the rent balance would go down as you say - but practically this is not what happens as the existing 'burb dwellers go into a full-court zoning press. I live in a suburb within walking distance of Philadelphia, and they only just now zoned the areas around the train stations as mixed-use... and even then, the buildings are capped at 3 or 4 stories. The stations have been there for over 100 years and serve something ridiculously low like 400 people per day (they also will not allow a parking garage to be built, so the small surface lot and residential streets are all of the parking that is available).
Best I can find is a part that consumes 120mW by itself, without the support circuitry. Very cool, but not exactly low power enough to replace quartz.
In fact, if you take their 1%:1.58% over a seven year period number as accurate, it is very close to my low estimate of 0.3% based on a $3000/month rent. The effects here are quite small.
That presumes an even distribution. It wasn't. FTFA: Airbnb listings were heavily concentrated in parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn and had a greater impact on these neighborhoods.
That might affect the x axis somewhat. We're still talking about only 10,000 units in the most densely populated part of the US. The rents are even higher in those locations, so I was probably very conservative with my numbers in the y axis and the real effect is probably even less than the 0.3-0.5% that I stated.
You seem to think "linear" means 1:1 ratio.
No, I don't think it means a 1:1 ratio. I mean it seems like the relationship between supply and demand is going to be more or less linear in such a small region. Whether we adjust supply or adjust demand won't significantly change whatever discussion we have going forward from that point. Both will raise prices, and by a similar amount. You have a specific, hard number to work with - you don't need to wax philosophical about whether demand went up or supply went down - it's not germane to the discussion.
There's good reason for people to want to protect their real estate investments
No argument there. People are working in their self-interest. I have attended zoning meetings and proposed changes based on protecting my own property. But that doesn't mean the changes that I pushed for were "fair" - they simply protected my self-interest.
Good points, though I think improving transport links will still increase rents wherever the people commute from. Put in a link from Staten Island to Midtown and the rents in Midtown might drop slightly, but the rents near the new station on Staten Island will go through the roof.
I guess I should say more generally that economic activity which generates demand but does not increase supply will tend to increase rents.
Have you ever lived in NYC? Sure, across the street it will push rents down. A block away they won't even be aware of its existence.
Go out to the suburbs and as soon as you drive out of sight of it, the rents will all go up to accommodate the new workers.
I'm violating all my Slashdot sanity rules, but why not - it's lunch.
Semantic argument - go!
The supply/demand curve can be approximated as linear in the tiny little range we are discussing. This is because the average rent in Manhattan/Brooklyn is in the $2000 - $3000 range and according to the study we're talking about a $10 delta from that each year.... so our Y axis is moving in the 0.3 - 0.5% range due to AirBNB. Our X axis is dealing with a delta of around 10,000 units out of more than a million between Manhattan and Brooklyn - so we are in the 1% range. A delta of 1% along the X axis and 0.5% along the Y axis is going to follow something very similar to a linear trend.
Given a linear trend, it does not matter whether you slide up the chart because you increased demand by 1% or decreased supply by 1%. It simply does not matter - it is a purely semantic game and you are arguing about a fact that just has no consequence.
If we were talking about the hotel market and the effect of AirBNB on the price or occupancy of hotel rooms, then hell yes, the added supply of 10,000 rooms would be very significant. But we're not, so you are calling me names for no good reason.