I would hope not. Still, after seeing them change the theory to show after the fact that it "predicts" colder winters, I wouldn't be astonished if they had. And, as the first place I saw that claim was here, I had no idea if the poster were quoting the CRU or simply talking out of his ass.
Here's some advice for you. Don't look at what "global warming people" have to say. Just research climactic models and find the one you think is best supported by the scientific evidence; not the one you want to believe, but the one that has best predicted our findings so far. That is science.
The one I support is the one that can start from known conditions twenty years ago and come up with what's happening today.
Somewhere in this thread is a claim that the MWP was man-made and that the LIA was caused by the drop in human CO2 output caused by the Black Death. No, it wasn't made by a climate scientist, and I certainly hope that none of them would be foolish enough to make that claim, but some of their supporters obviously are.
I've no idea; we've never had a blackout or brownout up here in Camarillo. If it were serious, we'd pack her in the car and take her someplace cooler, most likely.
The possible problem isn't the controversies themselves but the suggestions that the magazine isn't exactly careful about how they represent science. I get the impression that the critics believe that it's more interested in attention-grabbing headlines than accuracy. Mind you, I'm not accusing them of that myself, as I'm not very familiar with it. Just wondering...
Didn't I just read about 300 Slashdotters commenting that AGW was NOT about governments wanting to take more power. Now they are telling me what the temperature is in my home.
Welcome to Slashdot, where consistency is never an issue.
This is probably for the morons who can't throttle back the A/C before leaving for work and wait 20 minutes for it to cool down after they get home. If it's just got to be cool when you walk in the door, get a programmable thermostat.
Thank you. That's why I said it was a stupid idea: people who aren't home all day can use a programmable thermostat and have things the way they want when they come home. People like my mom and sister can have the AC running to keep them as healthy as possible. Why let the Big Brother power companies decide for us how we want our homes cooled?
Furthermore, if you're taking warmer or colder temperatures at any given time, even over a period of a few years to be a prediction of any AGW model, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
They also have it in Southern California. We opted out. My mother is 90 and my sister has MS and can't handle hot weather very well. Me, I think it's a stupid idea for consumers.
Sure you can. You can prove that there is no experiment that can be performed (if experimenting is possible) or observation made that can't be interpreted as proof that the theory is right. As an example, if it gets hotter in the summer, that's considered as proof of AGW. If it gets colder in the winter, all of a sudden, that becomes proof of AGW. No matter what happens, the AGW fanatics twist their theory to show (after the fact) that it's proof of their theory. At that point, the theory becomes unfalsifiable, and in the sense of Popper, a meaningless noise.
And you think that because New Scientist says it, it must be true? I notice that the first article you link to doesn't mention the dairy farms in Greenland. I do, however, agree that we're not simply recovering from the Little Ice Age; from all that I've been able to gather, that ended somewhere around 1850 or so.
Do you think that for AGW to be the cause of the increase in global temperature over the last century, it must also be the cause of every temperature variation ever?
No, I don't. However, the poster I was replying to seemed to think that was true, and I was trying to point out that that Just Isn't True.
You need to create a hypothesis as to what is causing global warming and then create and perform falsifiable tests of that hypothesis, and then have those tests repeated.
No, I don't. The Null Hypothesis is that what's happening is natural. In claiming that any and all climate change is man made, you are the one holding the burden of proof, not me!
You just hypothesized that the changing climate is the result of natural processes, but if you're being rational, you can't believe that until that theory has more scientific evidence than global warming being largely the result of human influence.
How do you explain the Early Medieval Warm Period, then? Do you think people were putting enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then to cause it? And, if so, how do you explain the Little Ice Age? In order for your theory of AGW to be considered correct, it has to explain all the data, including the inconvenient facts about the past.
In case you haven't noticed, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is still in force. That means that until and unless the jury finds him guilty he is to be considered innocent.
The only people I see with a "sense of entitlement" are the Boomers (I think that's the American term for people who are 50 to 65), and Indian students.
Not exactly, although it's easy to see why you'd think that. Boomers, or, to be more exact, Baby Boomers, are those of us born during the so-called "Baby Boom," the period from 1946-1964 when the birth-rate skyrocketed after WW II. Our parents were "Children of the Depression," and had a tendency to give their children all the nice things they'd never had when they were children, which did give some of us the sense of entitlement that you see now.
I know that if you use the binary from nVidia, that's what happens, although Ubuntu automates it on my sister's machine. I know how it works for Fedora because I have it on this box, with both the kmod and akmod installed. How it works for other distros, I don't know. What version of Linux are you using?
Not running Ubuntu myself, I was under the impression that it asks for permission to re-install the drivers after the reboot, not before, but you tell me otherwise. Thank you, I sit corrected.
You misunderstand. It's not that Linux doesn't support ATI or nVidia, it's that those two companies haven't released their specs so that OSS drivers can be written. All you have are binary blobs from the OEMs, and some distros make it easier than others to get them installed, with Ubuntu, probably, being the easiest. And, if you're going for mass installs, KISS is probably a good idea.
The only thing is, each time you update the kernel, you need to reboot, re-install the driver and reboot again. With the Fedora system, you update the kernel and kmod and reboot once, or update the kernel, reboot and let the akmod do the rest. Either way, it's only one reboot for a kernel upgrade. No problem if the IT guy does the updates, of course, but it's a tad faster.
Yes. Ubuntu downloads and re-installs the blobs from nVidia automatically every time the kernel is updated. Of course, each time it does so, it asks permission, and there's another reboot needed, just like in Windows. I use Fedora, where somebody has rebuilt them into kmods that are available from a repository and are updated separately, generally at the same time as the kernel, so there's no need for a second reboot. They also provide akmod-nvidia, which rebuilds the kmods at boot if there's not one present for the current kernel.
As long as you stay away from ATI or nVidia graphics cards, you should be OK. Those two brands need proprietary drivers because they won't release the specs but do make binary blobs available. Lexmark printers are also problematic because they neither release the specs nor make Linux drivers available.
I never had to do mass-imaging of Linux machines, but surely you could take a similar approach for the Ubuntu images?
Why bother? Unless your hardware OEMs refuse to cooperate with Linux, the drivers are either going to be present, or Ubuntu will download them after the first boot. Ubuntu may not be the geekiest distro around, but it does make things like that as easy and painless as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
I would hope not. Still, after seeing them change the theory to show after the fact that it "predicts" colder winters, I wouldn't be astonished if they had. And, as the first place I saw that claim was here, I had no idea if the poster were quoting the CRU or simply talking out of his ass.
The one I support is the one that can start from known conditions twenty years ago and come up with what's happening today.
Oh, that's right: there isn't one.
Somewhere in this thread is a claim that the MWP was man-made and that the LIA was caused by the drop in human CO2 output caused by the Black Death. No, it wasn't made by a climate scientist, and I certainly hope that none of them would be foolish enough to make that claim, but some of their supporters obviously are.
I've no idea; we've never had a blackout or brownout up here in Camarillo. If it were serious, we'd pack her in the car and take her someplace cooler, most likely.
The possible problem isn't the controversies themselves but the suggestions that the magazine isn't exactly careful about how they represent science. I get the impression that the critics believe that it's more interested in attention-grabbing headlines than accuracy. Mind you, I'm not accusing them of that myself, as I'm not very familiar with it. Just wondering...
Welcome to Slashdot, where consistency is never an issue.
+1 Insightful is often used as +1 Agree, so if your post is modded insightful and I disagree, -1 Overrated is fair.
I take it, then, that you feel it's OK to abuse the moderation system because you think other people do too?
Thank you. That's why I said it was a stupid idea: people who aren't home all day can use a programmable thermostat and have things the way they want when they come home. People like my mom and sister can have the AC running to keep them as healthy as possible. Why let the Big Brother power companies decide for us how we want our homes cooled?
I'm only quoting the claims of the AGW people.
They also have it in Southern California. We opted out. My mother is 90 and my sister has MS and can't handle hot weather very well. Me, I think it's a stupid idea for consumers.
Sure you can. You can prove that there is no experiment that can be performed (if experimenting is possible) or observation made that can't be interpreted as proof that the theory is right. As an example, if it gets hotter in the summer, that's considered as proof of AGW. If it gets colder in the winter, all of a sudden, that becomes proof of AGW. No matter what happens, the AGW fanatics twist their theory to show (after the fact) that it's proof of their theory. At that point, the theory becomes unfalsifiable, and in the sense of Popper, a meaningless noise.
Do you think that for AGW to be the cause of the increase in global temperature over the last century, it must also be the cause of every temperature variation ever?
No, I don't. However, the poster I was replying to seemed to think that was true, and I was trying to point out that that Just Isn't True.
No, I don't. The Null Hypothesis is that what's happening is natural. In claiming that any and all climate change is man made, you are the one holding the burden of proof, not me!
How do you explain the Early Medieval Warm Period, then? Do you think people were putting enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then to cause it? And, if so, how do you explain the Little Ice Age? In order for your theory of AGW to be considered correct, it has to explain all the data, including the inconvenient facts about the past.
Not unless you act on your opinion or express it in a way which can be interpreted as either slander or libel.
In case you haven't noticed, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is still in force. That means that until and unless the jury finds him guilty he is to be considered innocent.
Not exactly, although it's easy to see why you'd think that. Boomers, or, to be more exact, Baby Boomers, are those of us born during the so-called "Baby Boom," the period from 1946-1964 when the birth-rate skyrocketed after WW II. Our parents were "Children of the Depression," and had a tendency to give their children all the nice things they'd never had when they were children, which did give some of us the sense of entitlement that you see now.
I know that if you use the binary from nVidia, that's what happens, although Ubuntu automates it on my sister's machine. I know how it works for Fedora because I have it on this box, with both the kmod and akmod installed. How it works for other distros, I don't know. What version of Linux are you using?
Not running Ubuntu myself, I was under the impression that it asks for permission to re-install the drivers after the reboot, not before, but you tell me otherwise. Thank you, I sit corrected.
Thank you. At the time my sister went over to Linux, the opposite was true, and I hadn't heard that they'd changed their policy.
You misunderstand. It's not that Linux doesn't support ATI or nVidia, it's that those two companies haven't released their specs so that OSS drivers can be written. All you have are binary blobs from the OEMs, and some distros make it easier than others to get them installed, with Ubuntu, probably, being the easiest. And, if you're going for mass installs, KISS is probably a good idea.
The only thing is, each time you update the kernel, you need to reboot, re-install the driver and reboot again. With the Fedora system, you update the kernel and kmod and reboot once, or update the kernel, reboot and let the akmod do the rest. Either way, it's only one reboot for a kernel upgrade. No problem if the IT guy does the updates, of course, but it's a tad faster.
Yes. Ubuntu downloads and re-installs the blobs from nVidia automatically every time the kernel is updated. Of course, each time it does so, it asks permission, and there's another reboot needed, just like in Windows. I use Fedora, where somebody has rebuilt them into kmods that are available from a repository and are updated separately, generally at the same time as the kernel, so there's no need for a second reboot. They also provide akmod-nvidia, which rebuilds the kmods at boot if there's not one present for the current kernel.
As long as you stay away from ATI or nVidia graphics cards, you should be OK. Those two brands need proprietary drivers because they won't release the specs but do make binary blobs available. Lexmark printers are also problematic because they neither release the specs nor make Linux drivers available.
Why bother? Unless your hardware OEMs refuse to cooperate with Linux, the drivers are either going to be present, or Ubuntu will download them after the first boot. Ubuntu may not be the geekiest distro around, but it does make things like that as easy and painless as possible.