Did I say, 30% over the whole planet? no. That figure is for parts of Russia. It appears to be roughly 10% over N. America and 20% over the East Med. 10-15% over the UK.
The rest of your posting appears to be scientifically dubious - a warm can of soda cools because of the effects of depressurization. That has nada to do with global warming.
And why are you comparing rainfall and carbon emissions?
1. The G8 and other major economies, including from the developing world, form a G8+ Climate Group, to pursue technology agreements and related initiatives that will lead to large emissions reductions.
2. The G8-Plus Climate Group agree to shift their agricultural subsidies from food crops to biofuels, especially those derived from cellulosic materials, while implementing appropriate safeguards to ensure sustainable farming methods are encouraged, culturally and ecologically sensitive land preserved, and biodiversity protected.
3. G8 governments establish national renewable portfolio standards to generate at least 25% of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025, with higher targets needed for some G8 governments.
4. G8 governments increase their spending on research, development, and demonstration of advanced technologies for energy-efficiency and low- and zero-carbon energy supply by two-fold or more by 2010, at the same time as adopting strategies for the large-scale deployment of existing low- and zero-carbon technologies.
5. All industrialised countries introduce national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions, and construct them to allow for their future integration into a single global market.
6. A global framework be adopted that builds on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, and enables all countries to be part of concerted action on climate change at the global level in the post-2012 period, on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
7. A long-term objective be established of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 2 C (3.6 F) above the pre-industrial level, to limit the extent and magnitude of climate-change impacts.
8. Governments remove barriers to and increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and practices by taking steps including the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and requiring Export Credit Agencies and Multilateral Development Banks to adopt minimum efficiency or carbon intensity standards for projects they support.
9. Developed countries honour existing commitments to provide greater financial and technical assistance to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change, including the commitments made at the seventh conference of the parties to the UNFCCC in 2001, and pursue the establishment of an international compensation fund to support disaster mitigation and preparedness.
10. Governments committed to action on climate change raise public awareness of the problem and build public support for climate policies by pledging to provide substantial long-term investment in effective climate communication activities.
You know the reason They got the politicians and business leaders on the panel? Because otherwise everyone would just say 'Oh that's just a bunch of academics, what do they know'.
The idea was to look at the scientific facts and then make business and political recommendations, based on what is possible.
Still eh, easier to take cheap shots than to think about the problem.
Sadly, the actual report is not online, it costs £5 to buy, which is pretty mad IMHO.
You can find the original press release and list of recommendations, here though.
I'm a trained biologist, but not *not* an eco-nut. However the variety of scientific evidence coming out lately, combined with the interesting stuff on global dimming has got me seriously worried. And I mean seriously.
I'm sure you are right and the Earth's biosphere will probably cope, over the space of a few thousand years. However I have a two year old daughter, and I would really rather prefer her to enjoy the fruits of our society, rather than watching N. American and Europe become a dust-bowl over the next 40 years.
Time to actually take this stuff seriously.
Precis on dimming: Global warming effects may have been masked by particulate pollution which appears to have reduced the amount of sunlight getting to the Earth by a massive 30% in some cases).
Cellular data isn't really a competitor for WiMax. WiMax is great for static links, not mobile, cellular is a daft way of provisioning static links. It's a nice way of building backhaul or metro meshes.
I see no signs that the cellular operators are going be offering 3G data tariffs that are anything other than usage based, or heavily capped.
>Why do you think that any country should agree to be on the 'losing side' of a deal if they can avoid it?
Just to be clear - when you say 'losing side' are you talking about the country's workers - who want to be paid more than the going world rate, or the country's consumers - who want to pay the cheapest price possible?
This is not a black and white issue, it is up to each country to decide by how much they want their consumers to subsidize their own salaries.
Re:Need a Dual G% with thier software...
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
Oh I agree, and I use it that way myself, but I don' think someone should be flamed just for deciding to call it X.3 especially since the 10. is currently logically redundant.
Re:Need a Dual G% with thier software...
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 1
So let's be clear - there have been 10 major releases of OS X, right? I mean, that's why we are on version 10.3.7, yes?
No straw person intended. The paragraph in the parent that really irked me was the one that said:
"Secondary characteristic: if you take a property away from the owner, the owner no longer has access to it. Take a book away from me, and you have stolen my property. Take an image of the book, and I still have the book; nothing has been stolen."
The implication in 'nothing being stolen' being that we have some kind of victimless crime, or indeed no crime.
There are many ways of using 'steal' in the English language - and you are arguing that we should limit ourselves to a legal meaning as defined by property law.
However there is a rich tradition of other meanings in English - steal a kiss, steal an idea, steal a girlfriend, none of which pertain to property law, but all of which express the removal of an intangible thing.
Copyright breach is a wonderful term for those who wish to obfuscate the damage that such an act can inflict on a person or corporation. 'He stole my lyrics' is a perfectly clear and unambiguous statement in English.
Because we all know that information, knowledge and ideas - and the effort required to devise, create and embody it/them have zero value, correct?
Oh that's not what you meant.
So you meant that anybody who expends work creating something that isn't primarily a physical object, has no rights over the fruits of their labours?
Well, apparently that might be what you mean, but I disagree,
I'm perfectly happy to stop using the words 'theft' and 'property' when someone suggests alternative words that adequately express the loss that the creator of a work suffers when control of that work is ripped from their hands without their say so.
Moreover X11 is an optional item (default=no) when you initially install the OS. My guess would be that the large majority of Mac users don't have it installed.
The vast majority of the universe and all the things in it won't benefit you in the near future. Likewise the objects, people languages, animals and plants on earth, likewise (I suspect) most of the books ever written.
No. The studies suggests that the particulates form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space - it is not heating the upper atmosphere. The warming is caused by the greenhouse gas emissions
Again, the programme went into this is quite some detail, looking at what happens if we reduce particulates without reducing greenhouse emissions or vice versa. Moreover the interplay is complex, the two affects don't simply cancel each other out.
Yes climate management is complex, but yes, I think we are in serious trouble.
It is an interesting point. The documentary doesn't really deal with this other than to say that the original research (in the Maldives) showed the particulates made the clouds 'act like mirrors'.
You know what's worth than "pop science crap"? It is presumably intelligent contributors who - rather than take a hard look at an important science story - spend time querying a reporter's choice of words.
A reduction of 20% in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth in the med region, and the best you can do is query 'woke up'?
In fact, 'woke up' is a precise and fine usage in this case. The original work was essentially ignored, it didn't spawn follow-up hypothesis testing, it sat on the shelf. It was only when some other research, done in parallel also showed anomalies that the two were put together.
Your second point about conclusion jumping isn't very clear. But suffice it to say, the documentary never suggests that environmental change isn't multifactoral, however changes in insolation of 10% or 20% are *huge*.
So much for your critique. Now perhaps you'd like to address the important issues it raises. I did see the programme and it was a real eye opener....and as far as colloquial British English is concerned, you don't know how to deal with cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Did I say, 30% over the whole planet? no. That figure is for parts of Russia. It appears to be roughly 10% over N. America and 20% over the East Med. 10-15% over the UK.
The rest of your posting appears to be scientifically dubious - a warm can of soda cools because of the effects of depressurization. That has nada to do with global warming.
And why are you comparing rainfall and carbon emissions?
Is that what it sounds like? Based on what?
From the publisher's site
Key recommendations of the Taskforce include:
1. The G8 and other major economies, including from the developing world, form a G8+ Climate Group, to pursue technology agreements and related initiatives that will lead to large emissions reductions.
2. The G8-Plus Climate Group agree to shift their agricultural subsidies from food crops to biofuels, especially those derived from cellulosic materials, while implementing appropriate safeguards to ensure sustainable farming methods are encouraged, culturally and ecologically sensitive land preserved, and biodiversity protected.
3. G8 governments establish national renewable portfolio standards to generate at least 25% of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025, with higher targets needed for some G8 governments.
4. G8 governments increase their spending on research, development, and demonstration of advanced technologies for energy-efficiency and low- and zero-carbon energy supply by two-fold or more by 2010, at the same time as adopting strategies for the large-scale deployment of existing low- and zero-carbon technologies.
5. All industrialised countries introduce national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions, and construct them to allow for their future integration into a single global market.
6. A global framework be adopted that builds on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, and enables all countries to be part of concerted action on climate change at the global level in the post-2012 period, on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
7. A long-term objective be established of preventing global average temperature from rising more than 2 C (3.6 F) above the pre-industrial level, to limit the extent and magnitude of climate-change impacts.
8. Governments remove barriers to and increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and practices by taking steps including the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and requiring Export Credit Agencies and Multilateral
Development Banks to adopt minimum efficiency or carbon intensity standards for projects they support.
9. Developed countries honour existing commitments to provide greater financial and technical assistance to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change, including the commitments made at the seventh conference of the parties to the UNFCCC in 2001, and pursue the establishment of an international compensation fund to support disaster mitigation and preparedness.
10. Governments committed to action on climate change raise public awareness of the problem and build public support for climate policies by pledging to provide substantial long-term investment in effective climate communication activities.
You know the reason They got the politicians and business leaders on the panel? Because otherwise everyone would just say 'Oh that's just a bunch of academics, what do they know'.
The idea was to look at the scientific facts and then make business and political recommendations, based on what is possible.
Still eh, easier to take cheap shots than to think about the problem.
Not so much an interesting take as a rabid take.
Sadly, the actual report is not online, it costs £5 to buy, which is pretty mad IMHO.
You can find the original press release and list of recommendations, here though.
I'm a trained biologist, but not *not* an eco-nut. However the variety of scientific evidence coming out lately, combined with the interesting stuff on global dimming has got me seriously worried. And I mean seriously.
I'm sure you are right and the Earth's biosphere will probably cope, over the space of a few thousand years. However I have a two year old daughter, and I would really rather prefer her to enjoy the fruits of our society, rather than watching N. American and Europe become a dust-bowl over the next 40 years.
Time to actually take this stuff seriously.
Precis on dimming: Global warming effects may have been masked by particulate pollution which appears to have reduced the amount of sunlight getting to the Earth by a massive 30% in some cases).
What? You think 'A water filled drum attached to an electric motor' was tough to invent, compared to an encoding and compression algorithm?
I read it and thought 'They've re-invented the 'transputer'.
What do you want to do?
.... etc
>Look
You see your manager sitting opposite you, she is holding a sheaf of papers
>Examine papers
You can't do that.
>West
You bump into a filing cabinet. You cannot go that way
>I
You are carrying:
A PostgreSQL manual
A chewed blue pen (full)
A cup of black coffee
An NTK T-Shirt (worn)
A scarred Battle axe.
>Use Axe
Wow your point is evolving fast.
Cellular data isn't really a competitor for WiMax. WiMax is great for static links, not mobile, cellular is a daft way of provisioning static links. It's a nice way of building backhaul or metro meshes.
I see no signs that the cellular operators are going be offering 3G data tariffs that are anything other than usage based, or heavily capped.
I know. Hence my last paragraph, which you may want to read with a little care.
In fact, it's not actually that simple since the country also exports goods.
>Why do you think that any country should agree to be on the 'losing side' of a deal if they can avoid it?
Just to be clear - when you say 'losing side' are you talking about the country's workers - who want to be paid more than the going world rate, or the country's consumers - who want to pay the cheapest price possible?
This is not a black and white issue, it is up to each country to decide by how much they want their consumers to subsidize their own salaries.
Oh I agree, and I use it that way myself, but I don' think someone should be flamed just for deciding to call it X.3 especially since the 10. is currently logically redundant.
So let's be clear - there have been 10 major releases of OS X, right? I mean, that's why we are on version 10.3.7, yes?
>IP laws try to alter this fact, but they don't.
Well, in fact - they do. They make it possible to gain remuneration from intellectual work.
>You want control of an idea? Simple, keep it to yourself
Which sadly precludes the possibility of gaining remuneration from intellectual work.
No straw person intended. The paragraph in the parent that really irked me was the one that said:
"Secondary characteristic: if you take a property away from the owner, the owner no longer has access to it. Take a book away from me, and you have stolen my property. Take an image of the book, and I still have the book; nothing has been stolen."
The implication in 'nothing being stolen' being that we have some kind of victimless crime, or indeed no crime.
There are many ways of using 'steal' in the English language - and you are arguing that we should limit ourselves to a legal meaning as defined by property law.
However there is a rich tradition of other meanings in English - steal a kiss, steal an idea, steal a girlfriend, none of which pertain to property law, but all of which express the removal of an intangible thing.
Copyright breach is a wonderful term for those who wish to obfuscate the damage that such an act can inflict on a person or corporation. 'He stole my lyrics' is a perfectly clear and unambiguous statement in English.
Because we all know that information, knowledge and ideas - and the effort required to devise, create and embody it/them have zero value, correct?
Oh that's not what you meant.
So you meant that anybody who expends work creating something that isn't primarily a physical object, has no rights over the fruits of their labours?
Well, apparently that might be what you mean, but I disagree,
I'm perfectly happy to stop using the words 'theft' and 'property' when someone suggests alternative words that adequately express the loss that the creator of a work suffers when control of that work is ripped from their hands without their say so.
Any suggestions?
Moreover X11 is an optional item (default=no) when you initially install the OS. My guess would be that the large majority of Mac users don't have it installed.
The vast majority of the universe and all the things in it won't benefit you in the near future. Likewise the objects, people languages, animals and plants on earth, likewise (I suspect) most of the books ever written.
Luckily for us, you are deeply insignificant.
Will Scientific American do for starters?
2 D-755C-1D51-90FB809EC5880000&catID=1
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000176
The studies showed that the solar energy was being reflected by the clouds, not absorbed.
No. The studies suggests that the particulates form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space - it is not heating the upper atmosphere. The warming is caused by the greenhouse gas emissions
Again, the programme went into this is quite some detail, looking at what happens if we reduce particulates without reducing greenhouse emissions or vice versa. Moreover the interplay is complex, the two affects don't simply cancel each other out.
Yes climate management is complex, but yes, I think we are in serious trouble.
It is an interesting point. The documentary doesn't really deal with this other than to say that the original research (in the Maldives) showed the particulates made the clouds 'act like mirrors'.
You know what's worth than "pop science crap"? It is presumably intelligent contributors who - rather than take a hard look at an important science story - spend time querying a reporter's choice of words.
...and as far as colloquial British English is concerned, you don't know how to deal with cards.
A reduction of 20% in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth in the med region, and the best you can do is query 'woke up'?
In fact, 'woke up' is a precise and fine usage in this case. The original work was essentially ignored, it didn't spawn follow-up hypothesis testing, it sat on the shelf. It was only when some other research, done in parallel also showed anomalies that the two were put together.
Your second point about conclusion jumping isn't very clear. But suffice it to say, the documentary never suggests that environmental change isn't multifactoral, however changes in insolation of 10% or 20% are *huge*.
So much for your critique. Now perhaps you'd like to address the important issues it raises. I did see the programme and it was a real eye opener.