In a world where rootkits and malware infest nearly half of Windows desktops and deliver a tranparent proxy with encrypted tunnels into your precious LAN, all servers are web facing servers. The security of the firewall is a myth serious professionals no longer subscribe to, and many never did. Secure your intranet server and your desktops as if they were in your DMZ because for all practical purposes that's where they are.
A browser and a VT-100 terminal are all that a lot of customer service people need and should have. The limitation of using a web application prevents a lot of activity you don't want customer service people doing like installing applications, running scripts embedded in documents, etc. Web interfaces have come a long way.
Likewise networking and thin clients have come a long way since the days of Token Ring, which peaked at 100mbps in the late 1990s. Thin clients have gigabit network connections now and every port is switched rather than being part of a bus or loop.
Most especially servers have come a long way. It's not unusual to have a 1U server that runs 16 3GHz threads on 8 cores, or 12 threads on 12 cores, using high-bandwidth/high IOPs SAN or local storage and 10Gbps networking. Back then 1GHz was fast for a server. 1GB was a lot of RAM, and today 192GB is easily reachable. Next month we get the 12-core 2, 4 and 8 socket boxes for up to 96 cores per server. This is just the commodity stuff - I'm not citing the special purpose stuff like Sun and Itanic for the obvious reasons. Heck, these days the SSD hard drive in my laptop can do over 8K IOPs - I can configure a server to do well over a million. Storage infrastructure also enjoys the leverage of newer technologies that leverage abstraction in new ways. You can, for example, create "smart clones" of a desktop virtual machine which work as deltas off of a "standard image" and require almost no storage at all. As the user uses it, the smartclone image file on the SAN grows only as much as the data written. As soon as the customer logs out, their temporary data is erased and no storage is consumed - and they get a fresh image the next time they log in which improves security immensely.
So in short, time sharing was bad back then because you were sharing from a very shallow pool of resources through a thin straw. Now the pool is deeper enough, the straw is wide enough, to give the benefits we were promised back then and didn't see. The clients, the network and the servers all have the capacity to deliver an outstanding experience. Sharing is an even better idea now because the drives, servers and even individual processors or cores can power themselves down and up based on demand and keep a reasonable amount of resources available to handle demand spikes.
The question now becomes whether or not we can return to the cathedral - the ivory tower of precious resources husbanded and defended by a heirarchical information clergy steeped in knowledge and cloaked in the mysteries of keeping it running and making it safe. We needed the Bazaar to improve productivity when the infrastructure wasn't up to snuff, but it's proven a costly and vulnerable environment for business. Getting the end users to give up their local autonomy is not going to be a soft sell - it's going to be a long and ugly fight. IT pros can probably ease the transition by making the virtual or shared environment more open and faster than the local one until the transition is complete, and then shutting down the ability of end users to do unsafe things once the migration is complete.
It is if they're also teaching school. A lot of open source projects are funded by enterprises that pay programmers to improve the project and contribute back. There isn't a lot of call for that in LTSP yet - corporations find it easier to just license Citrix or Microsoft Terminal Services.
This may change as VDI initiatives take off for the power savings, security benefits and management economy. Terminal services on low-watt thin clients is hugely green. LTSP for terminal services, virtual desktops in KVM, plus dedicated servers for high-powered users makes a nice blended VDI solution that suits low-needs customer service people who only need a browser, all the way up to engineers - as long as everybody can use Linux. Management overhead is very low and security can be as high as you can get with network access terminals.
Yeah, you can do it without LTSP. But you don't have to be a guru to stand up an LTSP server and host desktops for thin clients so it's handy for the schools who use it. I've been using it at home for years to host desktops for guests because when the nieces and nephews come over they have incredible computer corrupting skills and need a platform that's less amenable to viruses than my kids' desktops and laptops.
You can also mangle the config to merge in DRBL, which allows me to netboot compute cluster nodes that I get at surplus if I want to do a little recreational number crunching or transcoding. I think it's pretty cool that we live in an age when an ordinary elementary school can have its own supercomputer and if their networking is up to snuff, join the ranks of the world's most powerful supercomputers.
But go ahead and rain on their parade if it makes you feel 1337.
Somebody modded it troll at first, but that was reverted pretty quickly.
They have everything to do with each other. Microsoft doesn't make any stand-alone products. Every last one is designed to lure you down the road of getting the new one that integrates easily with the old one - and may or may not with some difficulty be used with standard software - until you're mired in the pit that is TFA. This is not and never has been accidental.
There are tons of IE6-only applications. The ones that are driving me nuts right now are HP server and storage web management (iLO Advanced, Virtual Connect, Systems Insight Manager), so they're as old as the hardware that arrived last week. We need not even delve into enterprise in-house applications. And don't even get me started on the insanity that is Linux appliances that require IE6 for web management like various web-managed switches, media players, storage servers and whatnot.
It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other. The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary. Active-X was a tool to this end.
And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can. Because that won't be hard to get rid of.
I'm using the Patriot Torqx m28 that I got at Fry's. Peppy doesn't begin to describe it. I'm seeing 8800 small random read IOPs with Iometer, and 28000 sequential. Compare this with about 180 IOPs for a 15k SAS hard drive - it's over 40 times as fast. Boot time is well under 30 seconds. My Core2duo laptop is usable for work again, and I can finally work with virtual machines in a reasonable manner.
Any one you get is going to be better than spinning disk, but the newer ones really are much better and more durable.
W3.org, though, they've got some serious heft in web standards. It probably would not do to ignore their new standard version unless you're Microsoft, in which case interop is a negative and ignoring the new standard is an implied part of "ignore standards".
I used to belive in AGW, until I discovered that its proponents are such pricks. People are jerks when they're defending the indefensible, because that's how bullies gain their turf.
When faced with the quandry of conflicting sources with agendas, it's best to sweep the agendas away and examine the underlying facts. So... Who's got facts to share? Which debater is documenting their sources, publishing their underlying data and disclosing their analysis methods without fear or shame? Crunch the available numbers yourself if you want to.
I did. I don't have any peer-review quality data to share, but when I look at the raw data the corrections, the updates, the sample selection for the studies I find a number of things. The sensors march determinedly toward the sea over time. They decrease in elevation and move toward city centers (or city centers are built up around them). Remote and colder data is neglected as being unreliable. The newer the revision, the more older data decreases in temperature. An ice age is forming in 1910 as we watch the data evolve. The numbers are publicly available and you're welcome to check my figures.
I find the dendro-proxy data unconvincing for a number of reasons. It includes strip-bark tree data like Bristlecone Pines. I used to have a section of a Bristlecone pine (I grew up where they live - it was pre-endangered species period. The Paiute call it "Iron Wood". One log of it will burn for two days, but if you cut a tree down to try that you're going to prison.) Bristlecone pines have bark that wanders across their exterior. The type of sampling they did - cores - might show a particularly thin gap between rings that represents a dry summer, or that thin stripe might represent a thousand years that the bark covered a different part of the tree trunk. They were warned not to use strip bark trees in their dendro-proxies, but ignored the guidance because Bristlecone pines are the oldest living tree.
The dendro-proxy data includes highly selected (<20% sample) of a Russian Yew study that shows no warming except for one tree, the most influential tree in the world. The Russians have since refuted the warmist interpretation of the data. It includes samples from a Chinese study which has since denied their interpretation. Of course the Himalayan glacier melt quote and the disaster prediction paper are such embarassingly poor science as to be unworthy of mention here among adults - that's ISO/IEC 29500:2008 grade science, not something grownups should consider even if they nearly caused a disaster that was averted.
And then there's the Midieval Warm Period, which warmists deny as local on faith without any evidence whatsoever because it conflicts with their impending climatic apocalypse view. I don't know what to say about that. Obviously written history records that the Midieval Warm Period happened. It was perhaps partly responsible for the Black Death and the Renaissance, against which our modern concerns seem trivial.
Warmers like to cite satellite data. The satellites are calibrated on terrestrial data (theirs). They claim the satellites back their data, when in fact the satellites are deltas from it, and poor ones at that. 3000 miles is a long distance to measure a point in time temperature from, especially to fractions of a degree C. And then there's the fact that the satellites measure the temperature of the solid object their gaze falls upon - the ground or the surface of the sea in full daylight, rather than the air temperature two meters above ground in the shade, which is what most weather stations measure. To expect a high corrolation between these two method
Your long term trend has a problem. The "hockey stick", even if you believed in it, ended in 1995. The escape to infinity positive feedback loop predicted did not happen. Disaster was averted for 15 years without policy intervention. We are not living in The Day After Tomorrow.
Increasing partial pressures of CO2 increase the effective photosynthesis of plants across the entire face of the globe, most especially the oceans. This results in more hydrocarbons and calcium carbonate deposits on the floor of the oceans as the predominant terrestrial life form - algae - and the organisms that eat algae sequester it. That's a negative feedback loop that leads to equilibrium. There are not enough carbon based fuels left in the ground to even approach the optimal CO2 partial pressure for photosynthesis with modern plants, let alone exceed it.
We've burned most of the readily available carbon-based fuels already, and poorly. Modern methods create a lot less pollution. What damage we can do with the rest is not going to turn the Earth into Venus. If that could happen, it would have happened over a hundred million years ago when that carbon was being sequestered the previous time. Naturally that was not the first time. The life/carbon cycle is an important part of the Snowball Earth/Verdant Earth cycle. The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 in the Earth's original atmosphere was sequestered over a billion years ago when life was much different than it is today.
AGW alarmists would have you believe escape-to-infinity positive feedback loops are the only ones operating here. They're not. The Earth has sufficient quantity and diversity of biomass to prevent any runaway anything, and these cooperative organisms operate in to an effect (but not by design) that keeps us comfortable because in a larger biosphere sense we evolved to be compatible with their equilibrium.
Oddly enough much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere billions of years ago was sequestered by life forms like algae, which deposited it on the floor of the oceans where it was subducted by tectonic plate motion and dissolved into the Earth's mantle. We see today only a tiny fraction of the fossils that once consumed all that CO2, producing the O2 humans breathe today. Occasionally we see it as volcanic activity as high percentages of CO2 in the subducted rock escape violently in a process called "volcanic eruption". As the biosphere and tectonic motion subduct more and more carbon our supply of this precious resource will run out over the next billion years as it is no longer being replenished by comets as much as it once was. If we want to sustain our teeming billions we will one day import CO2 from the oort cloud or other sources. Before then we'll deliberately create CO2 from effluent and water capturing the phosphates for fertilizer and closing the cycle where it touches us.
So there. Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 won't double, won't turn into a runaway greenhouse, and will eventually be sequestered, subducted, and become a lost precious resource.
Now let's talk about husbanding our carbon fuel resources because they're a limited resource that will run out unless we get more from off-planet! That's a much more realistic issue than "OMG! Russians and Canadians might someday enjoy luxuries like sunbathing and agriculture! Rising oceans might drown humans who can't move inland at a rate of 1M/decade!"
Look, I get that you're playing to the audience rather than replying to the idiot who prompted you. That's fine.
The thing is, all of your weathergaarble is deprecated. We don't believe it any more. We once did, but it turns out those stories about thermal apocolypse 2004 didn't happen. You can Gaarble all you want about 2035, but we bought it once and we won't be fooled again.
Washington is a weird state. They recognized the value of fiber infrastrucure early because they had DOE projects (notably Hanford) that were well served by operators who were confident the nuclear fuel wouldn't kill them. That meant high bandwidth low latency connections to different points.
And then there's I-5. Washington has this international path that threads from California to Canada. I was there when they buried the fiber optic cables under I5 - they're bundles as thick as your leg. Seattle does not lack bandwidth - and they have their own peering point.
They're not even new to this - Grays Harbor county on the coast and Grant county in the center had programs that resulted in 100-1000gbps service (for many years now!) to the customers before Comcast and AT&T shut down expansion of the projects. They have the bandwidth, but they can't afford the lawyers. It's sick when that prevents progress. Maybe Google can help us here.
We had a law to allow Public Utility Districts to resell bandwidth to ISPs and build out fiber networks from the proceeds, but Comcast and QWest killed it.
Bring on the Google! I'm sure they know how to do this in a way that does not prevent progres!
Every month several asteroids pass between the Earth and the moon that would be unpleasant, and we usually hear about it only afterward. These are typically solar system objects with relatively low relative speeds.
Sol is orbiting our galactic core on an orbit that is a few degrees off of the galactic ecliptic, and now and then her path crosses that of extrasolar objects on similar orbits slightly out of phase. Apparently the ELE cycle is in synch with this galactic traversal cycle rather than some solar system period. Extrasolar objects would hit with many times the kinetic energy per kilogram, by benefit of their much higher relative velocity. More importantly, we would see them once only and briefly. They don't live here - they're only passing through. Mapping their period is of no use.
And the cycle has an Extinction Level Event right about... now.
who, by the way, tried to publish papers on their claims, but failed to pass peer-review on them
This is especially rich given the revealed suppression of publications and heretical papers in the climategate emails. Are there no depths you will not plumb to fit your theory? This is not science.
I can't even believe you still dare to bang this drum. Have you no pride?
Has there been a time in recent memory when the given reasons for tax rises matched the way the money was spent? I thought that trend died in the 1950's.
About your derision: it's beneath my contempt. If this is all you have you've wasted your time.
Apparently the way "climate scientists talk" is so divorced from reality that it's a language unto itself. A thing is what it is. Words mean things. Did you think I chose "symbolset" accidentally? That would be a bad guess.
I believe the climate is changing, as it always has and thank goodness we're on the upstroke of an interglacial age - the crop growing region is moving toward the arable land, which is good for feeding our teeming billions. Another 5C and most of Russia and Canada become farmland instead of permafrost. I would say that this would make much of southern California uninhabitable, but that would be redundant. The first three settlements there were never heard from again - it's a desert made habitable with water resources that are desertifying millions of square miles of external lands.
On whether humans are impacting this process I might admit that we have had some barely measureable impact, though I wouldn't claim to know it for sure. Most especially I would not claim that were a bad thing
But on whether anything ill will come of that, I have much doubt. Most especially whether the ill will outweigh the good is a serious question. Whether we need to do anything about seas that rise mere millimeters a year I would seriously debate. We have much more important issues to discuss from colonization of Mars and the Asteroid belt, beginning the work on interstellar travel, to observing and preparing to defend against the inevitable world-crushing asteroid - to preserve Man against real known threats. To worry about how much it will cost the remote descendants of some residents of the Phillipines to move their huts further from an encroaching sea is absurd. If they don't want to get wet they should move inland at a stately 4 meters per year and they will without intervention as the water comes up. To crush the world economy on the speculation that Global Climate Change might escape to infinity based on the available evidence? That's madness.
And about the "Science" of "Scientists" who won't show their work, I have outright disbelief. We might as well subscribe to the opinions of Kevin Trudeau. What have they got that he hasn't got, and more importantly, what do they not want you to know?
But call me a denier if you want. Labelling and ad-hominem seems to be the message of your political party.
Were we reading the same article? Did you open the posted URLs (hatefully not linked)?
I know you don't want to believe it. It goes against a lot of your established, posted and quoted opinions. But here Phil Jones is admitting Doubt - not just about small things, but about the very premises on which Climate Change Alarmism is based. When asked about dendro-proxy data he defers to the Briffa paper that cites at most 77 trees and chooses trees based on how well they match the desired conclusion. He doesn't disparage it but the implication to read the data is clear, and he's distancing himself from the conclusion in that way. A year ago his response might have been much different.
He confirms warming, and denies that the science is settled on the cause. He may has well said "we live in an interglacial age" and the jury is out on what humans are doing to impact climate. This is so far at odds with his published opinion that "throwing AGW under the bus" is an appropriate description.
I know moderation is going to be harsh in this thread, and one particular admin is going to run rampant with her unlimited mod points. I don't care. I'm not going to let her stifle discussion.
This is a truly sweet link. Thanks for it. This was not a friendly interview.
Maxume's comment notwithstanding, he is truly throwing AGW under the bus. "Warming since 1950" includes the periods 1950-1995 (some warming) and 1995-present (he admits no warming at all). Admits doubt about local nature of Midieval Warm Period. Admits measurement challenges and sensitivity of instruments.
His response to the Yamal question was particularly interesting. Rather than respond to the question he referred to the Briffa paper here. Look closely and you'll find that the maximum number of trees is about 77. Even if a tree were equivalent to a NIST calibrated platinum thermocouple, 75 trees is not enough measurement points in that vast area. Demotes interpretation of Yamal data from "proved science" to "I believe it's sound".
And then the killer quote:
N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
There you go. Phil Jones doesn't think the debate on climate change is over - even for the instrumental measurements and especially for the palaeoclimatic. And then there's the "independent review" mentioned several times:
T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?
This is a matter for the independent review.
That's shorthand for "I can't talk about that." There are several of these. And then a sweet, sweet close:
W - Finally, a personal question: Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit? What is next for you?
Slashdot Mirror
In a world where rootkits and malware infest nearly half of Windows desktops and deliver a tranparent proxy with encrypted tunnels into your precious LAN, all servers are web facing servers. The security of the firewall is a myth serious professionals no longer subscribe to, and many never did. Secure your intranet server and your desktops as if they were in your DMZ because for all practical purposes that's where they are.
A browser and a VT-100 terminal are all that a lot of customer service people need and should have. The limitation of using a web application prevents a lot of activity you don't want customer service people doing like installing applications, running scripts embedded in documents, etc. Web interfaces have come a long way.
Likewise networking and thin clients have come a long way since the days of Token Ring, which peaked at 100mbps in the late 1990s. Thin clients have gigabit network connections now and every port is switched rather than being part of a bus or loop.
Most especially servers have come a long way. It's not unusual to have a 1U server that runs 16 3GHz threads on 8 cores, or 12 threads on 12 cores, using high-bandwidth/high IOPs SAN or local storage and 10Gbps networking. Back then 1GHz was fast for a server. 1GB was a lot of RAM, and today 192GB is easily reachable. Next month we get the 12-core 2, 4 and 8 socket boxes for up to 96 cores per server. This is just the commodity stuff - I'm not citing the special purpose stuff like Sun and Itanic for the obvious reasons. Heck, these days the SSD hard drive in my laptop can do over 8K IOPs - I can configure a server to do well over a million. Storage infrastructure also enjoys the leverage of newer technologies that leverage abstraction in new ways. You can, for example, create "smart clones" of a desktop virtual machine which work as deltas off of a "standard image" and require almost no storage at all. As the user uses it, the smartclone image file on the SAN grows only as much as the data written. As soon as the customer logs out, their temporary data is erased and no storage is consumed - and they get a fresh image the next time they log in which improves security immensely.
So in short, time sharing was bad back then because you were sharing from a very shallow pool of resources through a thin straw. Now the pool is deeper enough, the straw is wide enough, to give the benefits we were promised back then and didn't see. The clients, the network and the servers all have the capacity to deliver an outstanding experience. Sharing is an even better idea now because the drives, servers and even individual processors or cores can power themselves down and up based on demand and keep a reasonable amount of resources available to handle demand spikes.
The question now becomes whether or not we can return to the cathedral - the ivory tower of precious resources husbanded and defended by a heirarchical information clergy steeped in knowledge and cloaked in the mysteries of keeping it running and making it safe. We needed the Bazaar to improve productivity when the infrastructure wasn't up to snuff, but it's proven a costly and vulnerable environment for business. Getting the end users to give up their local autonomy is not going to be a soft sell - it's going to be a long and ugly fight. IT pros can probably ease the transition by making the virtual or shared environment more open and faster than the local one until the transition is complete, and then shutting down the ability of end users to do unsafe things once the migration is complete.
It is if they're also teaching school. A lot of open source projects are funded by enterprises that pay programmers to improve the project and contribute back. There isn't a lot of call for that in LTSP yet - corporations find it easier to just license Citrix or Microsoft Terminal Services.
This may change as VDI initiatives take off for the power savings, security benefits and management economy. Terminal services on low-watt thin clients is hugely green. LTSP for terminal services, virtual desktops in KVM, plus dedicated servers for high-powered users makes a nice blended VDI solution that suits low-needs customer service people who only need a browser, all the way up to engineers - as long as everybody can use Linux. Management overhead is very low and security can be as high as you can get with network access terminals.
Yeah, you can do it without LTSP. But you don't have to be a guru to stand up an LTSP server and host desktops for thin clients so it's handy for the schools who use it. I've been using it at home for years to host desktops for guests because when the nieces and nephews come over they have incredible computer corrupting skills and need a platform that's less amenable to viruses than my kids' desktops and laptops.
You can also mangle the config to merge in DRBL, which allows me to netboot compute cluster nodes that I get at surplus if I want to do a little recreational number crunching or transcoding. I think it's pretty cool that we live in an age when an ordinary elementary school can have its own supercomputer and if their networking is up to snuff, join the ranks of the world's most powerful supercomputers.
But go ahead and rain on their parade if it makes you feel 1337.
Somebody modded it troll at first, but that was reverted pretty quickly.
They have everything to do with each other. Microsoft doesn't make any stand-alone products. Every last one is designed to lure you down the road of getting the new one that integrates easily with the old one - and may or may not with some difficulty be used with standard software - until you're mired in the pit that is TFA. This is not and never has been accidental.
There are tons of IE6-only applications. The ones that are driving me nuts right now are HP server and storage web management (iLO Advanced, Virtual Connect, Systems Insight Manager), so they're as old as the hardware that arrived last week. We need not even delve into enterprise in-house applications. And don't even get me started on the insanity that is Linux appliances that require IE6 for web management like various web-managed switches, media players, storage servers and whatnot.
It's not a secret that lock-in was why IIS and IE were designed to complement each other. The objective was to kill Netscape and Java by any means necessary. Active-X was a tool to this end.
And now we see the same tools who bought these chains exchanging them for IE8 and Sharepoint when they can. Because that won't be hard to get rid of.
I'm using the Patriot Torqx m28 that I got at Fry's. Peppy doesn't begin to describe it. I'm seeing 8800 small random read IOPs with Iometer, and 28000 sequential. Compare this with about 180 IOPs for a 15k SAS hard drive - it's over 40 times as fast. Boot time is well under 30 seconds. My Core2duo laptop is usable for work again, and I can finally work with virtual machines in a reasonable manner.
Any one you get is going to be better than spinning disk, but the newer ones really are much better and more durable.
Start with Sony, and that's all I need to know.
W3.org, though, they've got some serious heft in web standards. It probably would not do to ignore their new standard version unless you're Microsoft, in which case interop is a negative and ignoring the new standard is an implied part of "ignore standards".
I used to belive in AGW, until I discovered that its proponents are such pricks. People are jerks when they're defending the indefensible, because that's how bullies gain their turf.
When faced with the quandry of conflicting sources with agendas, it's best to sweep the agendas away and examine the underlying facts. So... Who's got facts to share? Which debater is documenting their sources, publishing their underlying data and disclosing their analysis methods without fear or shame? Crunch the available numbers yourself if you want to.
I did. I don't have any peer-review quality data to share, but when I look at the raw data the corrections, the updates, the sample selection for the studies I find a number of things. The sensors march determinedly toward the sea over time. They decrease in elevation and move toward city centers (or city centers are built up around them). Remote and colder data is neglected as being unreliable. The newer the revision, the more older data decreases in temperature. An ice age is forming in 1910 as we watch the data evolve. The numbers are publicly available and you're welcome to check my figures.
I find the dendro-proxy data unconvincing for a number of reasons. It includes strip-bark tree data like Bristlecone Pines. I used to have a section of a Bristlecone pine (I grew up where they live - it was pre-endangered species period. The Paiute call it "Iron Wood". One log of it will burn for two days, but if you cut a tree down to try that you're going to prison.) Bristlecone pines have bark that wanders across their exterior. The type of sampling they did - cores - might show a particularly thin gap between rings that represents a dry summer, or that thin stripe might represent a thousand years that the bark covered a different part of the tree trunk. They were warned not to use strip bark trees in their dendro-proxies, but ignored the guidance because Bristlecone pines are the oldest living tree.
The dendro-proxy data includes highly selected (<20% sample) of a Russian Yew study that shows no warming except for one tree, the most influential tree in the world. The Russians have since refuted the warmist interpretation of the data. It includes samples from a Chinese study which has since denied their interpretation. Of course the Himalayan glacier melt quote and the disaster prediction paper are such embarassingly poor science as to be unworthy of mention here among adults - that's ISO/IEC 29500:2008 grade science, not something grownups should consider even if they nearly caused a disaster that was averted.
And then there's the Midieval Warm Period, which warmists deny as local on faith without any evidence whatsoever because it conflicts with their impending climatic apocalypse view. I don't know what to say about that. Obviously written history records that the Midieval Warm Period happened. It was perhaps partly responsible for the Black Death and the Renaissance, against which our modern concerns seem trivial.
Warmers like to cite satellite data. The satellites are calibrated on terrestrial data (theirs). They claim the satellites back their data, when in fact the satellites are deltas from it, and poor ones at that. 3000 miles is a long distance to measure a point in time temperature from, especially to fractions of a degree C. And then there's the fact that the satellites measure the temperature of the solid object their gaze falls upon - the ground or the surface of the sea in full daylight, rather than the air temperature two meters above ground in the shade, which is what most weather stations measure. To expect a high corrolation between these two method
Your long term trend has a problem. The "hockey stick", even if you believed in it, ended in 1995. The escape to infinity positive feedback loop predicted did not happen. Disaster was averted for 15 years without policy intervention. We are not living in The Day After Tomorrow.
Increasing partial pressures of CO2 increase the effective photosynthesis of plants across the entire face of the globe, most especially the oceans. This results in more hydrocarbons and calcium carbonate deposits on the floor of the oceans as the predominant terrestrial life form - algae - and the organisms that eat algae sequester it. That's a negative feedback loop that leads to equilibrium. There are not enough carbon based fuels left in the ground to even approach the optimal CO2 partial pressure for photosynthesis with modern plants, let alone exceed it.
We've burned most of the readily available carbon-based fuels already, and poorly. Modern methods create a lot less pollution. What damage we can do with the rest is not going to turn the Earth into Venus. If that could happen, it would have happened over a hundred million years ago when that carbon was being sequestered the previous time. Naturally that was not the first time. The life/carbon cycle is an important part of the Snowball Earth/Verdant Earth cycle. The vast majority of atmospheric CO2 in the Earth's original atmosphere was sequestered over a billion years ago when life was much different than it is today.
AGW alarmists would have you believe escape-to-infinity positive feedback loops are the only ones operating here. They're not. The Earth has sufficient quantity and diversity of biomass to prevent any runaway anything, and these cooperative organisms operate in to an effect (but not by design) that keeps us comfortable because in a larger biosphere sense we evolved to be compatible with their equilibrium.
Oddly enough much of the carbon that was in the atmosphere billions of years ago was sequestered by life forms like algae, which deposited it on the floor of the oceans where it was subducted by tectonic plate motion and dissolved into the Earth's mantle. We see today only a tiny fraction of the fossils that once consumed all that CO2, producing the O2 humans breathe today. Occasionally we see it as volcanic activity as high percentages of CO2 in the subducted rock escape violently in a process called "volcanic eruption". As the biosphere and tectonic motion subduct more and more carbon our supply of this precious resource will run out over the next billion years as it is no longer being replenished by comets as much as it once was. If we want to sustain our teeming billions we will one day import CO2 from the oort cloud or other sources. Before then we'll deliberately create CO2 from effluent and water capturing the phosphates for fertilizer and closing the cycle where it touches us.
So there. Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 won't double, won't turn into a runaway greenhouse, and will eventually be sequestered, subducted, and become a lost precious resource.
Now let's talk about husbanding our carbon fuel resources because they're a limited resource that will run out unless we get more from off-planet! That's a much more realistic issue than "OMG! Russians and Canadians might someday enjoy luxuries like sunbathing and agriculture! Rising oceans might drown humans who can't move inland at a rate of 1M/decade!"
Not really. Five days is forever in this group.
Have you seen the Sam Kinnison skit where he's talking about Somalia? "You live in a farking desert! Move to where the food is!"
The climate changes. People move or they die out.
Working this "first Hurdle" meme pretty hard, are you? Hurdling is for people who can't run.
Look, I get that you're playing to the audience rather than replying to the idiot who prompted you. That's fine.
The thing is, all of your weathergaarble is deprecated. We don't believe it any more. We once did, but it turns out those stories about thermal apocolypse 2004 didn't happen. You can Gaarble all you want about 2035, but we bought it once and we won't be fooled again.
Washington is a weird state. They recognized the value of fiber infrastrucure early because they had DOE projects (notably Hanford) that were well served by operators who were confident the nuclear fuel wouldn't kill them. That meant high bandwidth low latency connections to different points.
And then there's I-5. Washington has this international path that threads from California to Canada. I was there when they buried the fiber optic cables under I5 - they're bundles as thick as your leg. Seattle does not lack bandwidth - and they have their own peering point.
They're not even new to this - Grays Harbor county on the coast and Grant county in the center had programs that resulted in 100-1000gbps service (for many years now!) to the customers before Comcast and AT&T shut down expansion of the projects. They have the bandwidth, but they can't afford the lawyers. It's sick when that prevents progress. Maybe Google can help us here.
We had a law to allow Public Utility Districts to resell bandwidth to ISPs and build out fiber networks from the proceeds, but Comcast and QWest killed it.
Bring on the Google! I'm sure they know how to do this in a way that does not prevent progres!
eh?
Every month several asteroids pass between the Earth and the moon that would be unpleasant, and we usually hear about it only afterward. These are typically solar system objects with relatively low relative speeds.
Sol is orbiting our galactic core on an orbit that is a few degrees off of the galactic ecliptic, and now and then her path crosses that of extrasolar objects on similar orbits slightly out of phase. Apparently the ELE cycle is in synch with this galactic traversal cycle rather than some solar system period. Extrasolar objects would hit with many times the kinetic energy per kilogram, by benefit of their much higher relative velocity. More importantly, we would see them once only and briefly. They don't live here - they're only passing through. Mapping their period is of no use.
And the cycle has an Extinction Level Event right about... now.
who, by the way, tried to publish papers on their claims, but failed to pass peer-review on them
This is especially rich given the revealed suppression of publications and heretical papers in the climategate emails. Are there no depths you will not plumb to fit your theory? This is not science.
I can't even believe you still dare to bang this drum. Have you no pride?
This is some quality work. It's nicely done. I would say what kind of work but I don't want to take away from the beauty of it.
But somebody here appreciates the fine line you're cutting. Well done!
Has there been a time in recent memory when the given reasons for tax rises matched the way the money was spent? I thought that trend died in the 1950's.
Sorry to confuse you so badly.
Unless you're Maxume's alt, why the apology?
About your derision: it's beneath my contempt. If this is all you have you've wasted your time.
Apparently the way "climate scientists talk" is so divorced from reality that it's a language unto itself. A thing is what it is. Words mean things. Did you think I chose "symbolset" accidentally? That would be a bad guess.
I believe the climate is changing, as it always has and thank goodness we're on the upstroke of an interglacial age - the crop growing region is moving toward the arable land, which is good for feeding our teeming billions. Another 5C and most of Russia and Canada become farmland instead of permafrost. I would say that this would make much of southern California uninhabitable, but that would be redundant. The first three settlements there were never heard from again - it's a desert made habitable with water resources that are desertifying millions of square miles of external lands.
On whether humans are impacting this process I might admit that we have had some barely measureable impact, though I wouldn't claim to know it for sure. Most especially I would not claim that were a bad thing
But on whether anything ill will come of that, I have much doubt. Most especially whether the ill will outweigh the good is a serious question. Whether we need to do anything about seas that rise mere millimeters a year I would seriously debate. We have much more important issues to discuss from colonization of Mars and the Asteroid belt, beginning the work on interstellar travel, to observing and preparing to defend against the inevitable world-crushing asteroid - to preserve Man against real known threats. To worry about how much it will cost the remote descendants of some residents of the Phillipines to move their huts further from an encroaching sea is absurd. If they don't want to get wet they should move inland at a stately 4 meters per year and they will without intervention as the water comes up. To crush the world economy on the speculation that Global Climate Change might escape to infinity based on the available evidence? That's madness.
And about the "Science" of "Scientists" who won't show their work, I have outright disbelief. We might as well subscribe to the opinions of Kevin Trudeau. What have they got that he hasn't got, and more importantly, what do they not want you to know?
But call me a denier if you want. Labelling and ad-hominem seems to be the message of your political party.
We've always been at war with Eastasia
Were we reading the same article? Did you open the posted URLs (hatefully not linked)?
I know you don't want to believe it. It goes against a lot of your established, posted and quoted opinions. But here Phil Jones is admitting Doubt - not just about small things, but about the very premises on which Climate Change Alarmism is based. When asked about dendro-proxy data he defers to the Briffa paper that cites at most 77 trees and chooses trees based on how well they match the desired conclusion. He doesn't disparage it but the implication to read the data is clear, and he's distancing himself from the conclusion in that way. A year ago his response might have been much different.
He confirms warming, and denies that the science is settled on the cause. He may has well said "we live in an interglacial age" and the jury is out on what humans are doing to impact climate. This is so far at odds with his published opinion that "throwing AGW under the bus" is an appropriate description.
I know moderation is going to be harsh in this thread, and one particular admin is going to run rampant with her unlimited mod points. I don't care. I'm not going to let her stifle discussion.
This is a truly sweet link. Thanks for it. This was not a friendly interview.
Maxume's comment notwithstanding, he is truly throwing AGW under the bus. "Warming since 1950" includes the periods 1950-1995 (some warming) and 1995-present (he admits no warming at all). Admits doubt about local nature of Midieval Warm Period. Admits measurement challenges and sensitivity of instruments.
His response to the Yamal question was particularly interesting. Rather than respond to the question he referred to the Briffa paper here. Look closely and you'll find that the maximum number of trees is about 77. Even if a tree were equivalent to a NIST calibrated platinum thermocouple, 75 trees is not enough measurement points in that vast area. Demotes interpretation of Yamal data from "proved science" to "I believe it's sound".
And then the killer quote:
N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
There you go. Phil Jones doesn't think the debate on climate change is over - even for the instrumental measurements and especially for the palaeoclimatic. And then there's the "independent review" mentioned several times:
T - Where do you draw the line on the handling of data? What is at odds with acceptable scientific practice? Do you accept that you crossed the line?
This is a matter for the independent review.
That's shorthand for "I can't talk about that." There are several of these. And then a sweet, sweet close:
W - Finally, a personal question: Do you expect to return as director of the Climatic Research Unit? What is next for you?
This question is not for me to answer.