Funny how you allude to some sort of conspiracy on the part of McIntyre and Watts to undermine scientific research in order to maintain or increase profits. Do you have any evidence that McIntyre and Watts are profiting by doing all the work they're doing, or are you just spreading your own FUD about them? Personally, I've read the weather station reviews that they've done, and it's pretty clear that all is not right with our temperature recording system. The fact is, cities grow, landscapes change, urban heat islands continue to spread, and these definitely affect local temperature readings. And the network of thermometer sites aren't being moved to compensate for this. Watts provided concrete evidence for many sites that were being encroached by pavement over time, which means the temperatures will rise over time. It's a clear problem he's pointed out. If we're not exactly sure about how accurate the data set really is, it should be addressed and rectified before drawing conclusions. But instead of that happening, people like you come by and denounce HIM, and not his observations. "Steve McIntyre is NOT a climatologist, and neither is Anthony Watts". So what? If in 1960 the thermometer was in the middle of a green field, and today it's surrounded by asphalt, you don't need to be a climatologist to know that the temperatures will read higher with the asphalt present. And you can't dismiss the changing environments by saying "the data has been adjusted to compensate". How the hell do you make an adjustment to compensate, when you don't know exactly WHAT you're compensating for? There was no audit done to tell the scientists how much of an adjustment they needed to apply for each piece of data, which means their adjustment won't be accurate either.
unless he continues to be right. So far, the "CO2 is the cause" crowd have continued to get it wrong, so why do so many people continue to listen to them? The initial theory of CO2 heating the planet up was based on the observations of Venus' atmosphere and temperature. Venus was described as a runaway greenhouse effect. While it's true that the atmosphere of Venus has a much higher concentration of CO2 than on Earth, it's also true that Mars has a higher concentration of CO2. Venus is much hotter than Earth, Mars is much colder. So what gives? Scientists have more recently concluded that the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect.
Bill Gates had nothing to do with getting the cost of computers down. In fact, the price of Microsoft's operating systems has continued to increase over time, not just in dollars but as a percentage of the total purchase.
How the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere during the Cambrian was 7000ppm and the average global temperature was 20C, and during the Jurassic the CO2 concentration was 2000ppm and the average temperature was still 20C? Shouldn't the temperature have been much, much higher during these periods? And shouldn't the temperature of the Cambrian be much higher than the Jurassic?
you are a tool. You have taken an extremely complex equation, with what seems like an infinite number of variables, and completely thrown it out the window. You have chosen to focus on a single variable, namely CO2, because you found that CO2 in s jar behaves as a greenhouse gas. What you fail to realize is how that variable affects the entire equation. It's quite possible that the variable you have chosen to focus on has such a minimal effect on the entire equation, that it can be ignored. I don't believe that CO2 is driving climate change for the simple reason that I have an extensive background in geology, and I know that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in Earth's geological past than they are now, without the corresponding temperature increase that the current climatologists attribute to CO2. If current models are correct (and they're not), the earth would have been baked to a crisp long ago. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. I have simply stated, time and again, that the scientists haven't yet been able to demonstrate the magnitude of it's effect in our atmosphere.
And stop putting words in my mouth. I said it's COMPLEX. I didn't say it behaved DIFFERENTLY. Just as an example, how does CO2 circulate through our atmosphere? Does the circulation of CO2 play a role in transportation of heat into the upper atmosphere? How about when compared to how other greenhouse gases circulate? Is it possible that CO2 can transfer heat into the ocean? Or from the ocean? What about other greenhouse gases? Are there so many other effective GHG's in our atmosphere, that CO2 doesn't realize it's full potential as a GHG? What if the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere is offset by the accompanied increase in surface area of our atmosphere. What if the increased surface area and corresponding increase in heat loss EXCEEDS the increased greenhouse effect?
The point is, there are far too many variables in our atmosphere to account for. The only way to determine how the system works is to measure as much as we can, observe, measure some more, correlate, and hope we can find a model that's accurate. That hasn't happened so far, which means there's more to consider than just the fact that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas when we put it in a jar".
so says the high priest of Global Warming. Do some independent research, and you will see:
1. temperatures have declined for the past decade.
2. how many articles the IPCC has referenced that weren't peer reviewed.
3. how many peer reviewed articles the IPCC ignored because they cast doubt on the "science is settled" mantra.
4. how they removed the medieval warm period from the charts because it was as warm or warmer as the '90s.
no, Einstein, I'm saying our atmosphere is complex, a glass jar with CO2 is simple. Actually, our atmosphere is EXTREMELY complex, and to draw concrete conclusions about how it works by focusing on a single variable glass jar experiment is EXTREMELY foolish!
while you can verify the greenhouse effect with a pair of jars, you CAN'T verify that the CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas until you can exactly mirror our complex atmosphere inside those same jars.
the IPCC reports are the primary driver behind AGW believers. And while there definitely is some peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports, much of it isn't. one sided? not peer reviewed?
The one thing climategate did was expose just how "unsettled" the science actually is. The fact that they can't explain the recent temperature decline, and the fact that they've manipulated the presentation of the data to make the 90's heat wave appear drastic, when it actually falls within normal historical bounds, shows us that a much better understanding is required before they can conclude that we're doomed because of CO2 emissions.
considering that Moore's Law was based on the observation that they were able to double the number of transistors about every 20 months, it would be inevitable that at some point they reach a limiting factor. The factor seems to be the process size, which is a physical barrier. As the process size continues to decrease, the physical size of atoms is a barrier that they can't get past.
the PC industry already IS a profitability wasteland. PC manufacturers have been suppliers of commodity equipment assembled on a shoestring budget with negligible profit for over 5 years now. That's why IBM liquidated their PC division to Lenovo. It's also why Dell's market capitalization continues to dwindle despite their efforts to diversify. And why Acer gobbled up Gateway and eMachines. Companies either have to continually grow their volume to maintain the same profits, or get into something different with more margin. Apple has been doing that for a while now, as has IBM. HP's PC division doesn't make them much money at all (relative to volume), but with all their other lines (printers, servers, etc) it's worth their effort because they can be the sole supplier for some huge corporations, thus making their profits on the specialty equipment.
friends, neighbours, schools, libraries, your local computer store. Surely you can find a Windows box somewhere nearby that you can use/borrow long enough to download your music from iTunes. Once you've used your credits up, you won't need to use iTunes again. Which begs the question, why don't you have all your songs already downloaded and saved in MP3 format from LaLa?
because if it did, you could, you know, go to a Windows computer, download your music, and put it on a flash drive/CD/network share to transfer to your Linux machine...
last I checked, you're still able to buy music from any record store, Amazon.com, or Wallmart online to name a few. I don't think that puts it in the monopoly category.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how you allude to some sort of conspiracy on the part of McIntyre and Watts to undermine scientific research in order to maintain or increase profits. Do you have any evidence that McIntyre and Watts are profiting by doing all the work they're doing, or are you just spreading your own FUD about them? Personally, I've read the weather station reviews that they've done, and it's pretty clear that all is not right with our temperature recording system. The fact is, cities grow, landscapes change, urban heat islands continue to spread, and these definitely affect local temperature readings. And the network of thermometer sites aren't being moved to compensate for this. Watts provided concrete evidence for many sites that were being encroached by pavement over time, which means the temperatures will rise over time. It's a clear problem he's pointed out. If we're not exactly sure about how accurate the data set really is, it should be addressed and rectified before drawing conclusions. But instead of that happening, people like you come by and denounce HIM, and not his observations. "Steve McIntyre is NOT a climatologist, and neither is Anthony Watts". So what? If in 1960 the thermometer was in the middle of a green field, and today it's surrounded by asphalt, you don't need to be a climatologist to know that the temperatures will read higher with the asphalt present. And you can't dismiss the changing environments by saying "the data has been adjusted to compensate". How the hell do you make an adjustment to compensate, when you don't know exactly WHAT you're compensating for? There was no audit done to tell the scientists how much of an adjustment they needed to apply for each piece of data, which means their adjustment won't be accurate either.
the strait of Gibraltar is 9 miles wide at it's narrowest. Good luck building that dam!
a study that shows monkeys are easily addicted to caffeine and nicotine? Or alcohol gets monkeys drunk?
try this
another Apple 4G prototype was discovered left behind at a restaurant table during the Friday lunch hour.
unless he continues to be right. So far, the "CO2 is the cause" crowd have continued to get it wrong, so why do so many people continue to listen to them? The initial theory of CO2 heating the planet up was based on the observations of Venus' atmosphere and temperature. Venus was described as a runaway greenhouse effect. While it's true that the atmosphere of Venus has a much higher concentration of CO2 than on Earth, it's also true that Mars has a higher concentration of CO2. Venus is much hotter than Earth, Mars is much colder. So what gives? Scientists have more recently concluded that the high temperatures on Venus aren't cause by a greenhouse effect.
Bill Gates had nothing to do with getting the cost of computers down. In fact, the price of Microsoft's operating systems has continued to increase over time, not just in dollars but as a percentage of the total purchase.
How the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere during the Cambrian was 7000ppm and the average global temperature was 20C, and during the Jurassic the CO2 concentration was 2000ppm and the average temperature was still 20C? Shouldn't the temperature have been much, much higher during these periods? And shouldn't the temperature of the Cambrian be much higher than the Jurassic?
or a decoy to mislead the competition into thinking the next version is just a revision, and the real 4th gen is quite different?
yes, being more open will always result in more sales. That's how Linux was able to surpass Windows so quickly.
you are a tool. You have taken an extremely complex equation, with what seems like an infinite number of variables, and completely thrown it out the window. You have chosen to focus on a single variable, namely CO2, because you found that CO2 in s jar behaves as a greenhouse gas. What you fail to realize is how that variable affects the entire equation. It's quite possible that the variable you have chosen to focus on has such a minimal effect on the entire equation, that it can be ignored. I don't believe that CO2 is driving climate change for the simple reason that I have an extensive background in geology, and I know that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in Earth's geological past than they are now, without the corresponding temperature increase that the current climatologists attribute to CO2. If current models are correct (and they're not), the earth would have been baked to a crisp long ago. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. I have simply stated, time and again, that the scientists haven't yet been able to demonstrate the magnitude of it's effect in our atmosphere.
And stop putting words in my mouth. I said it's COMPLEX. I didn't say it behaved DIFFERENTLY. Just as an example, how does CO2 circulate through our atmosphere? Does the circulation of CO2 play a role in transportation of heat into the upper atmosphere? How about when compared to how other greenhouse gases circulate? Is it possible that CO2 can transfer heat into the ocean? Or from the ocean? What about other greenhouse gases? Are there so many other effective GHG's in our atmosphere, that CO2 doesn't realize it's full potential as a GHG? What if the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere is offset by the accompanied increase in surface area of our atmosphere. What if the increased surface area and corresponding increase in heat loss EXCEEDS the increased greenhouse effect?
The point is, there are far too many variables in our atmosphere to account for. The only way to determine how the system works is to measure as much as we can, observe, measure some more, correlate, and hope we can find a model that's accurate. That hasn't happened so far, which means there's more to consider than just the fact that "CO2 is a greenhouse gas when we put it in a jar".
so says the high priest of Global Warming. Do some independent research, and you will see:
1. temperatures have declined for the past decade.
2. how many articles the IPCC has referenced that weren't peer reviewed.
3. how many peer reviewed articles the IPCC ignored because they cast doubt on the "science is settled" mantra.
4. how they removed the medieval warm period from the charts because it was as warm or warmer as the '90s.
no, Einstein, I'm saying our atmosphere is complex, a glass jar with CO2 is simple. Actually, our atmosphere is EXTREMELY complex, and to draw concrete conclusions about how it works by focusing on a single variable glass jar experiment is EXTREMELY foolish!
while you can verify the greenhouse effect with a pair of jars, you CAN'T verify that the CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas until you can exactly mirror our complex atmosphere inside those same jars.
the IPCC reports are the primary driver behind AGW believers. And while there definitely is some peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports, much of it isn't.
one sided?
not peer reviewed?
The one thing climategate did was expose just how "unsettled" the science actually is. The fact that they can't explain the recent temperature decline, and the fact that they've manipulated the presentation of the data to make the 90's heat wave appear drastic, when it actually falls within normal historical bounds, shows us that a much better understanding is required before they can conclude that we're doomed because of CO2 emissions.
is gullible.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny or not with this post, so you earned a FAIL.
considering that Moore's Law was based on the observation that they were able to double the number of transistors about every 20 months, it would be inevitable that at some point they reach a limiting factor. The factor seems to be the process size, which is a physical barrier. As the process size continues to decrease, the physical size of atoms is a barrier that they can't get past.
the PC industry already IS a profitability wasteland. PC manufacturers have been suppliers of commodity equipment assembled on a shoestring budget with negligible profit for over 5 years now. That's why IBM liquidated their PC division to Lenovo. It's also why Dell's market capitalization continues to dwindle despite their efforts to diversify. And why Acer gobbled up Gateway and eMachines. Companies either have to continually grow their volume to maintain the same profits, or get into something different with more margin. Apple has been doing that for a while now, as has IBM. HP's PC division doesn't make them much money at all (relative to volume), but with all their other lines (printers, servers, etc) it's worth their effort because they can be the sole supplier for some huge corporations, thus making their profits on the specialty equipment.
since you're so strong in your conviction to not use the iTunes store ever, can I have your iTunes credit when Apple sends it to you?
friends, neighbours, schools, libraries, your local computer store. Surely you can find a Windows box somewhere nearby that you can use/borrow long enough to download your music from iTunes. Once you've used your credits up, you won't need to use iTunes again. Which begs the question, why don't you have all your songs already downloaded and saved in MP3 format from LaLa?
because if it did, you could, you know, go to a Windows computer, download your music, and put it on a flash drive/CD/network share to transfer to your Linux machine...
last I checked, you're still able to buy music from any record store, Amazon.com, or Wallmart online to name a few. I don't think that puts it in the monopoly category.
1. iPod
2. iPhone
3. Windows Media Player