There was 4.7 times more CO2 in the atmosphere during the Jurassic period than now. Besides most CO2 does not come from fossil fuel burning. Natural sources are 20 times greater than sources due to human activity. CO2 is not poisonous. We are at a greater risk from an impact event such as the one at Tunguska than something like this.
It is also possible that grapes did in fact grow in Newfoundland (4640 - 5135N) in the past. The first recorded grapes were grown 2002, when a successful vineyard was established in Gambo, Newfoundland, 4850'N.[14] The time period of the Vinland settlement corresponds with the Medieval Warm Period (from about the 10th century to about the 14th century). Water temperatures in the northern hemisphere during this time were up to 1C warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far north as the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea (ca. 56N) and southern England (ca. 51N). There are vineyards at 54N in Lancashire and Yorkshire, northern England.
No, they didn't. There was some speculation on this (known as raising an hypothesis and then testing it), blown out of proportion by the popular press.
So in a couple of years I will hear you say that global warming was also a speculation blown out of proportion by the popular press? What a bunch of malarkey.
Standard methods used in analysis of historical data available from multiple sources using multiple techniques; and identified as such.
This is empty rhetoric. Many words without actually saying anything. They did deliberate biased sampling leading to contradictory results with the original sample results. Why do you think they don't want to reveal their data or their algorithm under a Freedom Of Information act request? A hallmark of experimental science is that you need to have reproducible results. They should have done that even without the law explicitly requiring it.
No, they didn't.
Yes they did.:-)
How about the Vikings settling North America (Canada) and calling it Vinland because you could grow grapes in it around 1000 AD? Or settling areas of Greenland that were later covered by ice and only now being uncovered?
Is this muddy grounding a sound basis for making erosive governmental policy? The "anti-global warming" people merely state it isn't.
Mechanical clocks don't electrocute you. I have never heard of anyone ever being electrocuted from a wristwatch. The power level a regular wristwatch requires is too small. I actually know people who have been dragged into machinery and usually they got their fingers caught in the mechanism. Not their watch. Which they would probably take off to work anyway.
How many times did you have to ask someone else the time in your trip?
People are eager to believe global warming skeptics for several reasons. One is that all the supposedly evil coal and petroleum we are burning, that supposedly will make life on Earth unbearable, consists of remains of dead plant and animal matter. Which means the biosphere actually had that carbon in it at a point and life didn't end as a result. So how come it will end now?
All the animals that we are supposed to have displaced and eliminated because of our evil human ways, did those not emit CO2 or methane either? This has got to the point people contemplate regulating cow farts! Perhaps we should regulate earthworm farts as well.
Another is that this is the same science profession that warned us of global cooling and impending ice age doom. A couple of decades ago. Now they are claiming the opposite. They cannot make accurate predictions for a decade, and we expect their predictions to be accurate for the next century?
Then there is the fact that they are mixing data measured from several disparaging sources, using different measurement techniques into the same chart and extrapolating trends from it. To add insult to injury it now transpires that they cherry picked measurement data in order to fit their theory rather than fitting their theory to the data. If this isn't damning evidence that the whole thing stinks, I dunno what is.
What I do understand is that he is comparing things that aren't comparable. He inferred temperatures using one measurement metric and, since that measurement metric wasn't convenient in a specific interval, mixed that data with data from a completely different measurement method in that interval. Then he uses that to extrapolate global trends based on inconsistent data.
What makes him think that since the measurement method is unreliable for the last 20 years, it is reliable for the rest of the time period hundreds of years back? It throws his entire theory out of the window. He is doing specious reasoning by cherry picking the results that fit his theory better.
I didn't break my wrist once because of my wristwatch. The impact broke the watch glass panel and dented the display. I do not use a watch as a status symbol: it is just that it is a practical way to know time without being so cumbersome that I need to empty my pockets to get it. Try getting a cellphone from your trouser pockets while sitting, or not dropping it from your shirt pocket while bending. That is assuming you have a shirt pocket at all... Besides, I usually keep my cell phone turned off anyway.
While there are wrist watch format cell phones such as the Samsung S9110 and the LG GD910 they usually have battery life issues. Even if they didn't, people who use smart phones require more than just a phone. So while wrist watch format devices may exist, many people need something akin to an organizer, web browser and map. This means you need a larger display screen and a writing/drawing surface similar in form factor to a moleskine notebook. Something that fits into a pocket. This is what a smartphone such as the iPhone, or even a device such as the iPod Touch does.
No kidding compressed air is crap for automobiles.When something manages to have worse volumetric energy density than lead acid batteries, plus nearly as bad gravimetric energy density even when you aren't factoring the weight of the container vessel, you know you have a loser there.
Actually you are missing several facts. The nuclear industry has made at least one metric of costs cheaper, that being fuel enrichment. For example, Eurodif currently uses around 2400 KWh of energy to enrich a certain amount of uranium, using the gas diffusion process, for France's nuclear power plants at Tricastin. They are replacing that with a gas centrifuge process which can make a similar amount of uranium with 40-100 KWh. Nuclear power plants aren't built more not because their electricity is more expensive, but because it takes several years to build a nuclear power plant, years while your initial investment isn't being recuperated and hence require large loans to be constructed. Providing you can finance their construction they are the cheapest form of power generation which exists (coal is as cheap as nuclear in some places, but power plants very far away from coal sources end up spending a lot of money on fuel transportation because it has so little energy per ton compared to uranium). Nuclear energy is a long term investment : but people are so focused on short term gains today that natural gas power plants and wind power are favored instead. Instability in the financial markets is no help either as loans become harder to manage for such large construction projects.
France made an investment in energy security by switching their electricity generation to nuclear power, after the 1970s oil crisis made electricity generation from fuel oil uneconomic. Italy and Germany choose to close their own nuclear power plants because its the "green" thing to do. The result is that they are now buying a lot of electricity from France, because they cannot generate enough cheap electric power on their own.
Bah. Focusing on current uranium production ignores the large number of uranium mines which were closed in the past years due to cheaper uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons being used, making the before mentioned mines uneconomic. Uranium got so cheap it put a damper into fuel reprocessing into plutonium and similar research. You need so little uranium to generate electricity (check the energy density of uranium compared to coal for e.g.) that even if the price increased several times it would have next to no impact on electricity prices. This is all old hat and well known.
Well, there is a weapon with the NATO codename SS-18 SATAN. It is a large MIRV ICBM. It can either launch a single 20 mton warhead or 10x 550-750 kt MIRV warheads.
The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology. It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum. The Allies had more advanced technology in certain areas such as the cavity magnetron for radar, strategic bombers such as the B-17, Avro Lancaster and B-29, fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire, tanks such as the T-34 and IS-2, Bazooka, Katyusha MLRS, code breaking such as ULTRA and MAGIC intercepts. Victory at the Battle of Midway was possible because the USA knew of the attack beforehand from code breaking for example.
If you live in the same house or very close by, limited user accounts work. If you get unreasonable/useless request just ignore them. It is what system administrators in a corporate setting do as well.
Intel also got a bit soft. Remember the Pentium III 1.13 GHz product "launch" which consisted of like a dozen working processors sent to the press to review? Then they kept delaying and delaying release for like forever because they were buggy and couldn't manufacture them in quantity? Then the Pentium 4 processor, which had higher clock rates but was much slower overall? Remember Intel telling us we would be using 10 GHz processors years ago thanks to their Netburst architecture? Hah. How about claiming Merced/IA-64/Itanium was the future of 64-bit computing and that 32-bit X86 was for legacy products?
It took two kicks in the nuts by AMD (Athlon and Opteron) for them to take notice. Even then it took a product made by Intel's Israeli team (made to compete with Transmeta for low-power portable marketshare originally mind you) since their US based teams were making abortive Netburst architectures which didn't work in practice. So Intel Pentium M (Centrino), Core and Core 2 were done by their Israeli team and Core i7 is their first decent processor, since the Pentium III, designed in the US.
They did. IBM and AMD shared manufacturing research together with Chartered, Freescale, Infineon and Samsung. AMD even considered manufacturing processors at Chartered because of this manufacturing process similarity, but in the end they couldn't get enough yield and had issues with licensing x86 from Intel. AMD probably doesn't consider manufacturing chips using IBM's similar East Fishkill factory because their production is already allocated and IBM is notoriously known as an expensive place to outsource chip production. Not exactly the thing you want when you are trying to compete with Intel's prices.
Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient. You need something for transportation as well and nuclear isn't it. Not until electric cars are cost-effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Paying to be included isn't the same as paying so your competition is excluded.
There was 4.7 times more CO2 in the atmosphere during the Jurassic period than now. Besides most CO2 does not come from fossil fuel burning. Natural sources are 20 times greater than sources due to human activity. CO2 is not poisonous. We are at a greater risk from an impact event such as the one at Tunguska than something like this.
This is also covered in Wikipedia:
It is also possible that grapes did in fact grow in Newfoundland (4640 - 5135N) in the past. The first recorded grapes were grown 2002, when a successful vineyard was established in Gambo, Newfoundland, 4850'N.[14] The time period of the Vinland settlement corresponds with the Medieval Warm Period (from about the 10th century to about the 14th century). Water temperatures in the northern hemisphere during this time were up to 1C warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far north as the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea (ca. 56N) and southern England (ca. 51N). There are vineyards at 54N in Lancashire and Yorkshire, northern England.
No, they didn't. There was some speculation on this (known as raising an hypothesis and then testing it), blown out of proportion by the popular press.
So in a couple of years I will hear you say that global warming was also a speculation blown out of proportion by the popular press? What a bunch of malarkey.
Standard methods used in analysis of historical data available from multiple sources using multiple techniques; and identified as such.
This is empty rhetoric. Many words without actually saying anything. They did deliberate biased sampling leading to contradictory results with the original sample results. Why do you think they don't want to reveal their data or their algorithm under a Freedom Of Information act request? A hallmark of experimental science is that you need to have reproducible results. They should have done that even without the law explicitly requiring it.
No, they didn't. :-)
Yes they did.
How about the Vikings settling North America (Canada) and calling it Vinland because you could grow grapes in it around 1000 AD? Or settling areas of Greenland that were later covered by ice and only now being uncovered?
Is this muddy grounding a sound basis for making erosive governmental policy? The "anti-global warming" people merely state it isn't.
Mechanical clocks don't electrocute you. I have never heard of anyone ever being electrocuted from a wristwatch. The power level a regular wristwatch requires is too small. I actually know people who have been dragged into machinery and usually they got their fingers caught in the mechanism. Not their watch. Which they would probably take off to work anyway.
How many times did you have to ask someone else the time in your trip?
People are eager to believe global warming skeptics for several reasons. One is that all the supposedly evil coal and petroleum we are burning, that supposedly will make life on Earth unbearable, consists of remains of dead plant and animal matter. Which means the biosphere actually had that carbon in it at a point and life didn't end as a result. So how come it will end now?
All the animals that we are supposed to have displaced and eliminated because of our evil human ways, did those not emit CO2 or methane either? This has got to the point people contemplate regulating cow farts! Perhaps we should regulate earthworm farts as well.
Another is that this is the same science profession that warned us of global cooling and impending ice age doom. A couple of decades ago. Now they are claiming the opposite. They cannot make accurate predictions for a decade, and we expect their predictions to be accurate for the next century?
Then there is the fact that they are mixing data measured from several disparaging sources, using different measurement techniques into the same chart and extrapolating trends from it. To add insult to injury it now transpires that they cherry picked measurement data in order to fit their theory rather than fitting their theory to the data. If this isn't damning evidence that the whole thing stinks, I dunno what is.
What makes him think that since the measurement method is unreliable for the last 20 years, it is reliable for the rest of the time period hundreds of years back? It throws his entire theory out of the window. He is doing specious reasoning by cherry picking the results that fit his theory better.
I didn't break my wrist once because of my wristwatch. The impact broke the watch glass panel and dented the display. I do not use a watch as a status symbol: it is just that it is a practical way to know time without being so cumbersome that I need to empty my pockets to get it. Try getting a cellphone from your trouser pockets while sitting, or not dropping it from your shirt pocket while bending. That is assuming you have a shirt pocket at all... Besides, I usually keep my cell phone turned off anyway.
While there are wrist watch format cell phones such as the Samsung S9110 and the LG GD910 they usually have battery life issues. Even if they didn't, people who use smart phones require more than just a phone. So while wrist watch format devices may exist, many people need something akin to an organizer, web browser and map. This means you need a larger display screen and a writing/drawing surface similar in form factor to a moleskine notebook. Something that fits into a pocket. This is what a smartphone such as the iPhone, or even a device such as the iPod Touch does.
No kidding compressed air is crap for automobiles.When something manages to have worse volumetric energy density than lead acid batteries, plus nearly as bad gravimetric energy density even when you aren't factoring the weight of the container vessel, you know you have a loser there.
Hmmm... Neuromancer was written by William Gibson in 1984 and describes brain-computer interfaces (and more).
I think the best systems are for area protection, placed near the target instead.
PS: Don't try this at home kids.
France made an investment in energy security by switching their electricity generation to nuclear power, after the 1970s oil crisis made electricity generation from fuel oil uneconomic. Italy and Germany choose to close their own nuclear power plants because its the "green" thing to do. The result is that they are now buying a lot of electricity from France, because they cannot generate enough cheap electric power on their own.
Bah. Focusing on current uranium production ignores the large number of uranium mines which were closed in the past years due to cheaper uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons being used, making the before mentioned mines uneconomic. Uranium got so cheap it put a damper into fuel reprocessing into plutonium and similar research. You need so little uranium to generate electricity (check the energy density of uranium compared to coal for e.g.) that even if the price increased several times it would have next to no impact on electricity prices. This is all old hat and well known.
Well, there is a weapon with the NATO codename SS-18 SATAN. It is a large MIRV ICBM. It can either launch a single 20 mton warhead or 10x 550-750 kt MIRV warheads.
What next, Linus stars in an "I'm a PC" commercial?
What, you mean like this?
Compression. You know, MPEG-4 AVC.
The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology. It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum. The Allies had more advanced technology in certain areas such as the cavity magnetron for radar, strategic bombers such as the B-17, Avro Lancaster and B-29, fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire, tanks such as the T-34 and IS-2, Bazooka, Katyusha MLRS, code breaking such as ULTRA and MAGIC intercepts. Victory at the Battle of Midway was possible because the USA knew of the attack beforehand from code breaking for example.
If you live in the same house or very close by, limited user accounts work. If you get unreasonable/useless request just ignore them. It is what system administrators in a corporate setting do as well.
Intel also got a bit soft. Remember the Pentium III 1.13 GHz product "launch" which consisted of like a dozen working processors sent to the press to review? Then they kept delaying and delaying release for like forever because they were buggy and couldn't manufacture them in quantity? Then the Pentium 4 processor, which had higher clock rates but was much slower overall? Remember Intel telling us we would be using 10 GHz processors years ago thanks to their Netburst architecture? Hah. How about claiming Merced/IA-64/Itanium was the future of 64-bit computing and that 32-bit X86 was for legacy products?
It took two kicks in the nuts by AMD (Athlon and Opteron) for them to take notice. Even then it took a product made by Intel's Israeli team (made to compete with Transmeta for low-power portable marketshare originally mind you) since their US based teams were making abortive Netburst architectures which didn't work in practice. So Intel Pentium M (Centrino), Core and Core 2 were done by their Israeli team and Core i7 is their first decent processor, since the Pentium III, designed in the US.
They did. IBM and AMD shared manufacturing research together with Chartered, Freescale, Infineon and Samsung. AMD even considered manufacturing processors at Chartered because of this manufacturing process similarity, but in the end they couldn't get enough yield and had issues with licensing x86 from Intel. AMD probably doesn't consider manufacturing chips using IBM's similar East Fishkill factory because their production is already allocated and IBM is notoriously known as an expensive place to outsource chip production. Not exactly the thing you want when you are trying to compete with Intel's prices.
Engelbart's team at the Stanford Research Institute invented the mouse before that. Most of his team moved to Xerox and did the STAR
USA research on coal to liquids is so good that the world leader in the field is Sasol : a South African company...
Nuclear is nice to have but not sufficient. You need something for transportation as well and nuclear isn't it. Not until electric cars are cost-effective.