You realised you linked to a search with one result about a pro-climate-change lobby, and all the rest are reports on anti-climate-change lobbying efforts several times it size?
1) You reconstruct data from proxies. That lets you get back a lot further than 1000 years. 2) Obviously this is why you do "1" 3) It's hard to say, as there are few studies which actually claim global warming isn't happening. There are plenty of studies criticising methodologies and exactly what the end results are, lots of academic back-biting but there is a remarkable consistency across field and technique in the general conclusion that mean temperatures increase. 4) It's observational science. The entire basis of empiricism depends on interpolation and extrapolation.
Basically you can project forwards or backwards with your model's error bars, and see if your observations pop out of that range. As it stands we're within, but near the bottom of, the expected range of temperatures for this time.
DWave don't have to "enlighten us": the statistical tests that distinguish quantum and classical annealing are in the public domain and they've been open about which of those tests they think the machine should pass. The trouble is that it's hard to run those tests cleanly, which is what the study is about:
Here we show how to define and measure quantum speedup in various scenarios, and how to avoid pitfalls that might mask or fake quantum speedup.
To be unequivocal about this: the head of the UN Security Council could have said the same things about China's military, and I doubt it would have been taken as saying that communism is a necessity for national security. (Nor, in fact, is communism necessary for one to have a political system that has little legislative oversight.)
It's a reference to the idea that Americans in general are less scientifically literate in general now than in, say, the Space Race. However I don't think anyone has shown any such change over recent years.
Imagine a criminal trial: there's a lot of evidence that your client is guilty, and you show a new piece of evidence which you claim says he is innocent. Except on examination, it turns out that it's completely consistent with his being guilty as well. It hardly matters that the evidence does not advance the case against your client. What matters is that it has failed to advance the case for your client.
If I google "California rainfall reconstruction" (because there weren't many rain meters out in California in the 1800s) I get a pile of articles on the subject showing data going back over 1000 years:
The country is facing growing public pressure from citizens to reduce air pollution, due in large part to burning coal. Its efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable power stem from the realization that doing so will pay off in the long term, Figueres said. “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.” China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.
There's no "only", there's no "this is the right way to do it", there's nothing like that. There's just "China is doing these things, this is why China is able to do these things".
I'm not one who buys into the whole "we should be designing games for $2000 systems" madness, but it's still obvious that improved technical performance is something that game creators want and can exploit to improve their art and design, much as film-makers like having new varieties of lens, film, and camera, new techniques for practical effects, new rigging systems and dollies, and so on.
You couldn't do the gameplay of something like MGS3, for instance, on an original PlayStation. For that gameplay to work you need a lot of variation in the shape and nature of the environment and you need the environment to be large. It's not that the game's full of whizz-bang visual effects, but drawing even crude grass and trees and characters eats up enormous amounts of polygons. You could barely do it on a PS2, and it turns out that a game with those creative goals is hugely improved by the locked framerate and booster resolution that it got when it was re-released on the systems that came afterwards.
Where else are Intel going to go? AMD's got the console space wrapped up this generation, and the Steambox isn't far enough along to make for a solid revenue stream. That leaves low-power applications where they're making progress but not yet ready to dive in. Like it or not, Intel are going to be a Windows and MacOS house for another five years or so.
Latency in cycles is higher for GDDR5, but the clock speed's a lot faster, isn't it? As the real-time latency is the product of the number of cycles and the length of a cycle, I think it's pretty much a wash.
Hey, if that majority wants to turn around and say "let's not teach our kids biology", let them get rid of evolution that way. Drop the pretense. Literally become the state without scientists.
It actually states that the universe was arbitrarily dense about 13.8 billion years ago*, compacting all the matter, energy and spacetime that currently exists into a small volume. But don't let not knowing what you're arguing against get in the way of arguing against it.
*It's a simple empirical observation, like evolution. Explaining why that might be so is essentially another issue, like natural selection.
Why debate trillion dollar deficits when the human race doesn't have a plan to escape the solar system before the sun ends its lifespan? Do you see how dumb that "we should focus on my preferred, bigger issue" trope is?
You go with the majority rule because you live in a democracy. You teach kids biology because the majority decided to teach the kids biology. That includes evolution, because evolution is part of biology. That does not include creationism, because creationism and intelligent design are by their own axioms not biology-based models of the universe.
Slashdot Mirror
You realised you linked to a search with one result about a pro-climate-change lobby, and all the rest are reports on anti-climate-change lobbying efforts several times it size?
Unfortunately scientists have to use models based on physics, and not curve-fitting.
1) You reconstruct data from proxies. That lets you get back a lot further than 1000 years.
2) Obviously this is why you do "1"
3) It's hard to say, as there are few studies which actually claim global warming isn't happening. There are plenty of studies criticising methodologies and exactly what the end results are, lots of academic back-biting but there is a remarkable consistency across field and technique in the general conclusion that mean temperatures increase.
4) It's observational science. The entire basis of empiricism depends on interpolation and extrapolation.
Basically you can project forwards or backwards with your model's error bars, and see if your observations pop out of that range. As it stands we're within, but near the bottom of, the expected range of temperatures for this time.
DWave don't have to "enlighten us": the statistical tests that distinguish quantum and classical annealing are in the public domain and they've been open about which of those tests they think the machine should pass. The trouble is that it's hard to run those tests cleanly, which is what the study is about:
Here we show how to define and measure quantum speedup in various scenarios, and how to avoid pitfalls that might mask or fake quantum speedup.
I would love to see you provide an example of the rhetorical device you claim is being used.
To be unequivocal about this: the head of the UN Security Council could have said the same things about China's military, and I doubt it would have been taken as saying that communism is a necessity for national security. (Nor, in fact, is communism necessary for one to have a political system that has little legislative oversight.)
It's a reference to the idea that Americans in general are less scientifically literate in general now than in, say, the Space Race. However I don't think anyone has shown any such change over recent years.
Imagine a criminal trial: there's a lot of evidence that your client is guilty, and you show a new piece of evidence which you claim says he is innocent. Except on examination, it turns out that it's completely consistent with his being guilty as well. It hardly matters that the evidence does not advance the case against your client. What matters is that it has failed to advance the case for your client.
Here's a Scholar link which gives more relevant results.
If I google "California rainfall reconstruction" (because there weren't many rain meters out in California in the 1800s) I get a pile of articles on the subject showing data going back over 1000 years:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=california+rainfall+reconstruction
Your "translation" is a complete nonsequeter: the article states that a 17-year window is a necessary condition, not that it's a sufficient one.
Try reading and you'll see it says nothing of the kind.
The country is facing growing public pressure from citizens to reduce air pollution, due in large part to burning coal. Its efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable power stem from the realization that doing so will pay off in the long term, Figueres said. “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.” China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.
There's no "only", there's no "this is the right way to do it", there's nothing like that. There's just "China is doing these things, this is why China is able to do these things".
...and it's 0.01% of published literature, not scientists.
It's not a peer-reviewed study, it's an informal systematic review.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
You know what a fast, multi-core parallelised CPU optimised for video encoding looks like?
A GPU.
By Deus, when you think the debate can't sink any lower, it has descended to poetry. Stop the ride, I wanna get off.
I'm not one who buys into the whole "we should be designing games for $2000 systems" madness, but it's still obvious that improved technical performance is something that game creators want and can exploit to improve their art and design, much as film-makers like having new varieties of lens, film, and camera, new techniques for practical effects, new rigging systems and dollies, and so on.
You couldn't do the gameplay of something like MGS3, for instance, on an original PlayStation. For that gameplay to work you need a lot of variation in the shape and nature of the environment and you need the environment to be large. It's not that the game's full of whizz-bang visual effects, but drawing even crude grass and trees and characters eats up enormous amounts of polygons. You could barely do it on a PS2, and it turns out that a game with those creative goals is hugely improved by the locked framerate and booster resolution that it got when it was re-released on the systems that came afterwards.
Where else are Intel going to go? AMD's got the console space wrapped up this generation, and the Steambox isn't far enough along to make for a solid revenue stream. That leaves low-power applications where they're making progress but not yet ready to dive in. Like it or not, Intel are going to be a Windows and MacOS house for another five years or so.
Latency in cycles is higher for GDDR5, but the clock speed's a lot faster, isn't it? As the real-time latency is the product of the number of cycles and the length of a cycle, I think it's pretty much a wash.
It has a rock grinder which accomplishes the same task of getting at an unweathered surface. This is just a free lunch, not a new mission capability.
Hey, if that majority wants to turn around and say "let's not teach our kids biology", let them get rid of evolution that way. Drop the pretense. Literally become the state without scientists.
It actually states that the universe was arbitrarily dense about 13.8 billion years ago*, compacting all the matter, energy and spacetime that currently exists into a small volume. But don't let not knowing what you're arguing against get in the way of arguing against it.
*It's a simple empirical observation, like evolution. Explaining why that might be so is essentially another issue, like natural selection.
Why debate trillion dollar deficits when the human race doesn't have a plan to escape the solar system before the sun ends its lifespan? Do you see how dumb that "we should focus on my preferred, bigger issue" trope is?
You go with the majority rule because you live in a democracy. You teach kids biology because the majority decided to teach the kids biology. That includes evolution, because evolution is part of biology. That does not include creationism, because creationism and intelligent design are by their own axioms not biology-based models of the universe.