You are very right that I am biased. I am biased to studies that were conducted using reliable data. You will not get reliable data back to 1891 (as the author claims) for a majority of locations on the Earth. You may have reliable data for your particular terrestrial location; that hardly shows that there is reliable data for the entire globe.
If I am a block head, then I don't even want to say what you appear to be:
The U.N. didn't exist until 1948 (if memory serves). For your population count: many countries have never bothered to take a census. Their populations are inferred by whatever evidence is available.
So, pray tell, what reliable data has this Japanese Agency imported into its global dataset?
You prove there is. Man-made global climate change is not the accepted fact you claim it to be.
If you're so sure about your position: I challenge you to name even one non-Japanese "regional entity" (regional being more than a single country) that has temperature records (resolvable and accurate to less than one degree F) back to 1891.
Because at least for the 1890s and probably through the mid-1900s: (1) the available technology/recording was not as accurate as today's digital thermometers, (2) there was no global standards body that regulated all thermometers across the Earth, and (3) the records available would be from whatever exists after adverse historical events (wars, coups, disasters, etc.) For example, you might be able to find temperature records for India in British hands. But even if you did, the accuracy would be questionable as the technology used was bulb thermometers (hopefully) calibrated to some known reference temperature (such as the freezing point of water). You'd be relying upon the diligence of some official (or even worse soldier) who probably didn't care much beyond recording "hot" and "very hot".
A Japanese meteorologist wouldn't try to use that kind of data against the data available now (by automated stations that are calibrated exactly).
Here's the quote again from the article: "The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June GLOBALLY since at least 1891, when its dataset begins."
"its" is a possessive word, meaning that it belongs to the Agency. I hardly think that this Agency has combed the globe collecting temperature readings back to the days of bulb thermometers. (You know, those alpaca herders in Peru kept surprisingly good and accurate logs... not!) I have no doubt that the dataset referred to is that collected by the Japanese Agency alone, specifically on Japanese-governed lands and territories. If you want to prove me wrong, then have at it.
It would be nice if there were a global (as in the whole Earth) dataset that could be used to prove global climate change back to the 1890s. The reality is that what is available is incomplete and of limited accuracy.
If you would be kind enough to read the quotation from the article that I was responding to:
"The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June GLOBALLY since at least 1891, when its dataset begins."
How many times do I need to say this? A Japanese agency does not have a global (as in the entire Earth) reference for 1891 with which to compare global (again, the entire Earth) temperatures for 2014. The word "global" in this context can only mean as applied to the dataset of the Agency, which is of course specifically for Japan!
And what the fuck are you on about? Do you claim that the Japanese Meteorological Agency has global records (as in for a good distribution of the Earth) back to 1891? Do you think that NASA has that? (You know, the agency that goes back to the 1950's?)
You don't have just bias. You have an impossible fantasy.
If the article were being posted from an authoritative site, then I might consider your argument to be valid. However, this article was posted by slate.com. They're not an authority on climatology: they're in the business of selling advertising in connection with articles that attract attention.
The language was also probably translated from Japanese. So the author looked at the Japanese, considered the corresponding adjectives available (global vs. regional), and picked the one that would attract the most attention while still maintaining some credibility.
And as I said elsewhere: I guarantee you the Japanese Meteorological Agency does not have global records (in Antarctica, Argentina, the Sudan, Sweden, etc.) back to 1891. So in the proper context, the adjective "global" here can only mean comprehensive to their Agency's records for Japan.
I guarantee you: The Japanese Meteorological Agency was not in Antarctica (or Argentina, or Equador, or Ethiopia,.. or even the U.S.) in the 1890s, or even the 1980s.
If you look carefully, you'll see the map that you refer to shows "temperature anomalies" of up to +/- 5 degrees C from a "1981 to 2010 baseline". (See all the blue on the map? That means many places globally were cooler from the baseline.) That hardly shows global warming. It also does not show the "global" records that you want it to.
Do you think you can treat me as though I.... wasn't an idiot?
When the hell is the debate going to shift from 'IF' to 'Now what the fuck are we going to do?'
Answer: when the global warming proponents actually prove (1) its existence and (2) some meaningful effect in the lifetime of someone alive.
We, in the U.S., used to be under threat of nuclear attack by ICBMs. How many built bomb shelters? How many moved away from cities? That ought to give you a pretty good reference for the term "meaningful" as used above (as in its pretty damned high to reach.)
What "geologic indications" are these, exactly? The last time I checked, the global warming proponents were just checking ice cores for CO2 content in the atmosphere. The melting point of most rocks is well above the hottest temperatures encountered in the atmosphere...
You know that the word "globally" can mean something other than "over the entire globe", right?
From dictionary.com: "global: adjective... 2. comprehensive"
So all the Japanese Meteorological Agency said is that June 2014 was the warmest June in the comprehensive data sets that it has kept since 1891 for Japan. Perhaps you should consider that you might have a BIAS of your OWN before you start spouting forth quotations, Coward.
There's no surprise here, folks. Most people care just enough to avoid catching the blame from their neighbors and co-workers. As individuals, people are predisposed to make their own individual situation better (or not worse), even if it harms the community at large. History is full of examples: racism, tobacco farmers, heroin smugglers, vain conquering rulers, religious figureheads, professors of arcane subjects, etc. etc....
Here's another news story for these outlets: people don't change without motivation.
And you're providing no evidence that there is not any creep, nor do you explain why there are non-uniformities in the near side of the Moon. The burden of proof is upon the one attempting to prove their theory. The fact that the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth now does not prove that it was at the time the Moon's surface that we see was formed. The fact that the surface of a lake is mirror-like calm today does not mean that there were no waves yesterday.
Someone has posited a theory. They have not proven it with sufficient evidence.
Actually, tidal locking works because the (non-)rotating object is out-of balance spherically considering density imperfections in the object. (Gravity preferring one side of the object over the other.) Tidal locking deforms the Earth, not the Moon.
Let's take your laser measurements a do a little back-of-the-napkin calculations.
Four billion years is 4*10^9, your presumed period of tidal locking is 2*10^5; around 1000 such periods. I'll assume that the rotational rate of the Moon slows by 2 every such period, and I'll assume an original rotational rate of 1 day (as no one knows what that original rate was). Using those assumptions, the residual rotational motion of the Moon today would be 1/(2^1000)th of its original rate, which is about 1/(10^300) which would give it a present rotational period of about 10^297 years (a really big number). That is well beyond the capability of measurement using anything available.
You can't have it both ways: either the rotation of the moon is slowing, or it's not. I believe that I've shown that what the Moon is presently doing today is of no relevance to proving this theory. Try again...
I'd like to see this evidence used to show the composition of the Moon. I understood that it was from modeling the heat radiation of the Moon. I don't think your evidence exists.
The earliest images of the Moon (that I'm aware of anyway) are those made in drawing by Galileo in the 1600's. I don't know what measurements you're referring to to show this "perfect" tidal locking. When made in perspective between the time period from Galileo (400 years) to the time period when the Earth was hot enough to affect the surface of the Moon (4,000,000,000 years), I hardly think anyone alive can show that the Moon has and will always keep the same face to the Earth.
Add to that the fact that the Moon isn't solid and has a liquid core that likely rotates at a different rate than that of the solid shell, and you wind up with a system that isn't yet explained by modern science.
The reason that a rotating bowling ball set on the floor eventually stops is because of static friction. There is no static friction to stop the rotation of the Moon entirely; the angular momentum with respect to the Earth would slow in a complex equation that would diminish over time (but never entirely stop.) The present angular momentum is most likely very slow, too slow to be detected by man over the course of a few hundred years.
My arguments still remain that the maria of the Moon don't cover the near side evenly.
These guys have a long way to go before I'll be convinced that their theory is correct.
Yes, this theory makes sense if the moon is perfectly tidally locked. However, that isn't likely. The "far side" of the moon has been that only in human history: only a few thousand years. We're talking about billions of years. All that would be needed is a few centimeters creep per year and the far side would become the near side in the course of millions of years.
This theory doesn't explain how the marias happen to all be on the near side presently given this creep. It also does not account for the likelihood that the warming would have been across the entire moon with this creep. It also does not account for the obvious fact that there are two kinds of surfaces on the near side on the moon: if this warming had been the cause, the difference would be more semi-hemispherical in nature (warming entirely one-half of the surface of the moon) -- the marias cover a lot less than that.
If all the organization does is release code under an open source license, then they're not collecting money. If the organization is charging for services relating to that code, then there's something to tax.
If my garage inflates tires, I'm using a free resource (air). My garage might even inflate tires for free (charity) to get people to come in. That doesn't make my garage a charity.
If the organization doesn't collect money (or turn a profit), then there will be no income taxes to pay. It sounds like some accountant was putting a sticker labeled "apple" on a squash and claiming it was an apple. Somebody at the IRS caught the fudging...
The reason these overly-broad patents used by the patent trolls are granted is because they don't get properly examined and rejected. The patent examiner isn't given time to do a sufficiently thorough search or to make a proper legal case against a patent application. Those cases become patents, and the costs that should have been paid in examination get paid many times over in litigation.
This guy has been part of the running of a pharmaceutical company. That kind of company deals with regulations of all kinds (from the FDA) and oftentimes manages to make a profit on generic medications. If he can provide better and efficiency to the administration of the USPTO, then he has my vote. That's the kind of reform that is truly needed...
The free market for copyrightable works includes similar works made by other authors. The government-granted monopoly is not to all works of the kind of a copyrighted work, it is the monopoly to one particular expression within that kind. (I made another comment under this story using watermelons; I'm too lazy to go find it.)
The same kind of monopolies exist in real properties: I can't rent out a particular condo for less than the owner is willing to. Does the owner have a monopoly? Yes, on that particular condo. Does that prevent a free market for condos? No, because there are other condos for rent in the free market.
When there is some desirable or profitable copyrighted work out there, somebody else will create another one similar to it. When there is one distributor of cable-type programming out there, others will compete. If you don't like Dish, then you can get Direct-TV. See?
Slashdot Mirror
You are very right that I am biased. I am biased to studies that were conducted using reliable data. You will not get reliable data back to 1891 (as the author claims) for a majority of locations on the Earth. You may have reliable data for your particular terrestrial location; that hardly shows that there is reliable data for the entire globe.
I understand very well, "good sir".
If I am a block head, then I don't even want to say what you appear to be:
The U.N. didn't exist until 1948 (if memory serves). For your population count: many countries have never bothered to take a census. Their populations are inferred by whatever evidence is available.
So, pray tell, what reliable data has this Japanese Agency imported into its global dataset?
You prove there is. Man-made global climate change is not the accepted fact you claim it to be.
If you're so sure about your position: I challenge you to name even one non-Japanese "regional entity" (regional being more than a single country) that has temperature records (resolvable and accurate to less than one degree F) back to 1891.
Coward: there isn't the data there to support your conclusions. Declaring there is and belittling my valid points won't change that.
Because at least for the 1890s and probably through the mid-1900s: (1) the available technology/recording was not as accurate as today's digital thermometers, (2) there was no global standards body that regulated all thermometers across the Earth, and (3) the records available would be from whatever exists after adverse historical events (wars, coups, disasters, etc.) For example, you might be able to find temperature records for India in British hands. But even if you did, the accuracy would be questionable as the technology used was bulb thermometers (hopefully) calibrated to some known reference temperature (such as the freezing point of water). You'd be relying upon the diligence of some official (or even worse soldier) who probably didn't care much beyond recording "hot" and "very hot".
A Japanese meteorologist wouldn't try to use that kind of data against the data available now (by automated stations that are calibrated exactly).
Here's the quote again from the article: "The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June GLOBALLY since at least 1891, when its dataset begins."
"its" is a possessive word, meaning that it belongs to the Agency. I hardly think that this Agency has combed the globe collecting temperature readings back to the days of bulb thermometers. (You know, those alpaca herders in Peru kept surprisingly good and accurate logs ... not!) I have no doubt that the dataset referred to is that collected by the Japanese Agency alone, specifically on Japanese-governed lands and territories. If you want to prove me wrong, then have at it.
It would be nice if there were a global (as in the whole Earth) dataset that could be used to prove global climate change back to the 1890s. The reality is that what is available is incomplete and of limited accuracy.
If you would be kind enough to read the quotation from the article that I was responding to:
"The Japan Meteorological Agency said June 2014 was the warmest June GLOBALLY since at least 1891, when its dataset begins."
How many times do I need to say this? A Japanese agency does not have a global (as in the entire Earth) reference for 1891 with which to compare global (again, the entire Earth) temperatures for 2014. The word "global" in this context can only mean as applied to the dataset of the Agency, which is of course specifically for Japan!
And what the fuck are you on about? Do you claim that the Japanese Meteorological Agency has global records (as in for a good distribution of the Earth) back to 1891? Do you think that NASA has that? (You know, the agency that goes back to the 1950's?)
You don't have just bias. You have an impossible fantasy.
If the article were being posted from an authoritative site, then I might consider your argument to be valid. However, this article was posted by slate.com. They're not an authority on climatology: they're in the business of selling advertising in connection with articles that attract attention.
The language was also probably translated from Japanese. So the author looked at the Japanese, considered the corresponding adjectives available (global vs. regional), and picked the one that would attract the most attention while still maintaining some credibility.
And as I said elsewhere: I guarantee you the Japanese Meteorological Agency does not have global records (in Antarctica, Argentina, the Sudan, Sweden, etc.) back to 1891. So in the proper context, the adjective "global" here can only mean comprehensive to their Agency's records for Japan.
I guarantee you: The Japanese Meteorological Agency was not in Antarctica (or Argentina, or Equador, or Ethiopia, .. or even the U.S.) in the 1890s, or even the 1980s.
If you look carefully, you'll see the map that you refer to shows "temperature anomalies" of up to +/- 5 degrees C from a "1981 to 2010 baseline". (See all the blue on the map? That means many places globally were cooler from the baseline.) That hardly shows global warming. It also does not show the "global" records that you want it to.
Do you think you can treat me as though I .... wasn't an idiot?
When the hell is the debate going to shift from 'IF' to 'Now what the fuck are we going to do?'
Answer: when the global warming proponents actually prove (1) its existence and (2) some meaningful effect in the lifetime of someone alive.
We, in the U.S., used to be under threat of nuclear attack by ICBMs. How many built bomb shelters? How many moved away from cities? That ought to give you a pretty good reference for the term "meaningful" as used above (as in its pretty damned high to reach.)
What "geologic indications" are these, exactly? The last time I checked, the global warming proponents were just checking ice cores for CO2 content in the atmosphere. The melting point of most rocks is well above the hottest temperatures encountered in the atmosphere...
You know that the word "globally" can mean something other than "over the entire globe", right?
From dictionary.com: "global: adjective ... 2. comprehensive"
So all the Japanese Meteorological Agency said is that June 2014 was the warmest June in the comprehensive data sets that it has kept since 1891 for Japan. Perhaps you should consider that you might have a BIAS of your OWN before you start spouting forth quotations, Coward.
There's no surprise here, folks. Most people care just enough to avoid catching the blame from their neighbors and co-workers. As individuals, people are predisposed to make their own individual situation better (or not worse), even if it harms the community at large. History is full of examples: racism, tobacco farmers, heroin smugglers, vain conquering rulers, religious figureheads, professors of arcane subjects, etc. etc....
Here's another news story for these outlets: people don't change without motivation.
Whee...
And you're providing no evidence that there is not any creep, nor do you explain why there are non-uniformities in the near side of the Moon. The burden of proof is upon the one attempting to prove their theory. The fact that the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth now does not prove that it was at the time the Moon's surface that we see was formed. The fact that the surface of a lake is mirror-like calm today does not mean that there were no waves yesterday.
Someone has posited a theory. They have not proven it with sufficient evidence.
Actually, tidal locking works because the (non-)rotating object is out-of balance spherically considering density imperfections in the object. (Gravity preferring one side of the object over the other.) Tidal locking deforms the Earth, not the Moon.
Let's take your laser measurements a do a little back-of-the-napkin calculations.
Four billion years is 4*10^9, your presumed period of tidal locking is 2*10^5; around 1000 such periods. I'll assume that the rotational rate of the Moon slows by 2 every such period, and I'll assume an original rotational rate of 1 day (as no one knows what that original rate was). Using those assumptions, the residual rotational motion of the Moon today would be 1/(2^1000)th of its original rate, which is about 1/(10^300) which would give it a present rotational period of about 10^297 years (a really big number). That is well beyond the capability of measurement using anything available.
You can't have it both ways: either the rotation of the moon is slowing, or it's not. I believe that I've shown that what the Moon is presently doing today is of no relevance to proving this theory. Try again...
I'd like to see this evidence used to show the composition of the Moon. I understood that it was from modeling the heat radiation of the Moon. I don't think your evidence exists.
The earliest images of the Moon (that I'm aware of anyway) are those made in drawing by Galileo in the 1600's. I don't know what measurements you're referring to to show this "perfect" tidal locking. When made in perspective between the time period from Galileo (400 years) to the time period when the Earth was hot enough to affect the surface of the Moon (4,000,000,000 years), I hardly think anyone alive can show that the Moon has and will always keep the same face to the Earth.
Add to that the fact that the Moon isn't solid and has a liquid core that likely rotates at a different rate than that of the solid shell, and you wind up with a system that isn't yet explained by modern science.
The reason that a rotating bowling ball set on the floor eventually stops is because of static friction. There is no static friction to stop the rotation of the Moon entirely; the angular momentum with respect to the Earth would slow in a complex equation that would diminish over time (but never entirely stop.) The present angular momentum is most likely very slow, too slow to be detected by man over the course of a few hundred years.
My arguments still remain that the maria of the Moon don't cover the near side evenly.
These guys have a long way to go before I'll be convinced that their theory is correct.
Yes, this theory makes sense if the moon is perfectly tidally locked. However, that isn't likely. The "far side" of the moon has been that only in human history: only a few thousand years. We're talking about billions of years. All that would be needed is a few centimeters creep per year and the far side would become the near side in the course of millions of years.
This theory doesn't explain how the marias happen to all be on the near side presently given this creep. It also does not account for the likelihood that the warming would have been across the entire moon with this creep. It also does not account for the obvious fact that there are two kinds of surfaces on the near side on the moon: if this warming had been the cause, the difference would be more semi-hemispherical in nature (warming entirely one-half of the surface of the moon) -- the marias cover a lot less than that.
My bogus detector is bleeping loudly
Yep. There already is "wireless" birth control out there. They're made available as "birth control pills". No wires in there at all...
After all, if a story about interbreeding, genetics and extinction of humans appears on Slashdot, then it has to be true......
If all the organization does is release code under an open source license, then they're not collecting money. If the organization is charging for services relating to that code, then there's something to tax.
If my garage inflates tires, I'm using a free resource (air). My garage might even inflate tires for free (charity) to get people to come in. That doesn't make my garage a charity.
If the organization doesn't collect money (or turn a profit), then there will be no income taxes to pay. It sounds like some accountant was putting a sticker labeled "apple" on a squash and claiming it was an apple. Somebody at the IRS caught the fudging...
The reason these overly-broad patents used by the patent trolls are granted is because they don't get properly examined and rejected. The patent examiner isn't given time to do a sufficiently thorough search or to make a proper legal case against a patent application. Those cases become patents, and the costs that should have been paid in examination get paid many times over in litigation.
This guy has been part of the running of a pharmaceutical company. That kind of company deals with regulations of all kinds (from the FDA) and oftentimes manages to make a profit on generic medications. If he can provide better and efficiency to the administration of the USPTO, then he has my vote. That's the kind of reform that is truly needed...
The free market for copyrightable works includes similar works made by other authors. The government-granted monopoly is not to all works of the kind of a copyrighted work, it is the monopoly to one particular expression within that kind. (I made another comment under this story using watermelons; I'm too lazy to go find it.)
The same kind of monopolies exist in real properties: I can't rent out a particular condo for less than the owner is willing to. Does the owner have a monopoly? Yes, on that particular condo. Does that prevent a free market for condos? No, because there are other condos for rent in the free market.
When there is some desirable or profitable copyrighted work out there, somebody else will create another one similar to it. When there is one distributor of cable-type programming out there, others will compete. If you don't like Dish, then you can get Direct-TV. See?
Actually, copyrights started in Britain in the early 1700's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...