With highish first derivatives of temperature over time being on the order of a couple of degrees C per millennium, and second derivatives operating on the order of.1 degree per millennium per millennium. To treat 1800-2015 as the same as -10000 BC to 1 AD is crazy.
I see, you're someone who heard something, and saw NONE of the numbers. The deltas we see on temperatures are an order of magnitude greater than the energy deltas from the sun. You've never even looked at the data, not even a little. Then you have the gall to form a "we don't know" type political opinion. It's insulting.
Except the past 11 years haven't been centered around a maximum, but rather we just passed a minimum in 2008. Have you not even studied your own counter-"theory"?
Problems with small towns. 1. relative poverty, and very few professional job opportunities.. 2. Large portion of population lack perspective 3. Small towns have strong identities but have equally strong Inferiority complexes
1. Not true, I've had 2 high tech jobs out of small towns. I don't know what else to say about that. 2. Bald assertion about the people who live there. Completely unjustified from where I'm sitting too. 3. Again, painfully bald assertion of psychology of a LOT of people
problems with the suburbs 1. Poor planning regarding zoning distribution and transportation. -Everything just takes so freaking long to do compared to a small town. 2. Lack of identity 3. Feels very isolating for people who didn't grow up in one.
1. Not necessarily, but people are separated from everything. From their neighbors by fences, from different subdivisions by artificially twisty roads. From commerce by driving required distances. From industry by frequently hours by car. 2. Not just a lack of identity, but an facade of one, along with an enforced sterility. 3. I don't see what growing up in one has to do with anything. It is isolating, there's all sorts of elements that seem to exist only to isolate.
Problems with cities 1. Crime 2. Its Loud 3. bad schools 4. Neighborhoods with extreme poverty and toxic culture. 5. Hipsters inhabit the nice affordable neighborhoods 6. Have to deal with people shouting out angry profanity on an almost daily basis. 7. The city dynamic gets boring.
1. Not really anymore, crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1980s, with numerous social mechanisms behind those drops, only some of which are politically reversible. 2. Not all parts of cities are loud, that's an impression people get from fiction more than reality. Suburbs tend to be near high velocity roads with constant traffic that is actually worse in some ways. Rural areas are quiet. 3. A self-fulfilling prophecy as wealthy people with kids move to places with "good schools". Of note, some cities have exceptional schools. Not the one I live in, but that's another story. 4. I can't interpret this as anything other than "Oh no minorities". Clarify this point. 5. As opposed to who? What paragon artificial slice of humanity do you interact with daily that is so non-annoying. 6. Never had to even once. Not even ONCE. Again seems like a stereotype out of fiction rather than something you've actually experienced. 7. I never asserted it to be exciting or constantly novel. It's a bit healthier for the human psyche, the environment, and in the long run, the economy. I'm not sure what amazing, non-boring things you think happen in the suburbs.
Guess what? In ancient Rome, they called Rome, "the city" and in England, they call London "the city", and it's similarly true elsewhere in history and the world. The condescension is imagined on your part.
Suburbs seem to be the defining problem from my generation's perspective. It's a cultural wasteland. It lacks identity. And for a generation that has become almost entirely bound to the indoors, most of the proclaimed advantages are unnoticed. The mortgages that go with suburban living look like an anchor to a group that is already mostly overburdened with student loan debt. It looks like despair incarnate.
It'll be a SLOW shift towards urbanization though. Huge chunks of the populace look at the suburbs as what you are supposed to do, particularly once you have children. Falling crime rates and rising transit costs will eventually break that, though.
Reports today indicate a small developer you've never heard of, has altered how they will finance a product you've never heard of. The pricing cited factors commonly referenced in the field the product competes in, but no supporting data was provided. Tune in at 11 for detailed analysis about how free products differ from open source ones, with a panelist who barely understands economics or copyright law.
No. No I wasn't. I was saying that microclimates might have different correct answers, and thus you can identify partisan bias in BOTH directions. We can't see enough detail to determine if this is what happened, because science reporting sucks.
Well the fact that they categorized by zip code may indicate an awareness of this. SOME not-insubstantial number of zip codes within the United States had decreasing average temperatures across the last decade, thanks to things like micro climates and the patterns climate shifts actually occur in. It is not unreasonable to presume that people might falsely believe there was a localized temperature increase when there was not. It's not necessary to oversimplify. It would be nice if THE DATA were available and they had GONE INTO DETAIL in the article, but what can you do?
I really really really really despise articles that are subjective analysis of data that don't include any sort of access to the data itself. "Trust us the numbers say X" is the single most intolerable statement to a rational human being.
I would just like to back up what everyone else is saying. They weren't ad hominem, as per the fact that, in theory, the postings addressed an argument. They did so in a factually incorrect way, but that's irrelevant.
Of course it can be invalidated. It hasn't been, but to say it couldn't be is really classifying it as pseudoscience.
Any of the following would be pretty substantial invalidations(and these are off the top of my head): 1. Evidence that the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide are narrower in the near infrared than the nitrogen-oxygen mix our atmosphere currently has. 2. A substantial deviation of multiyear temperature deviation aggregates from the proposed theory(preferably actually negative) 3. A well demonstrated model that maps the past temperatures accurately while incorporating feedback mechanisms that limit temperature increase.(well, this wouldn't be a true invalidation, but it would be a valid competing theory. Funny that we haven't gotten any) 4. Evidence if substantial human induced errors in measurement that could account for the differences of the past few years(a picture of an air conditioner unit doesn't count)
None of the "counter evidence" I've ever heard even begins to address anything like this.
Actually, I get it now, you were suggesting the break in was an ad hominem attack on the scientists, not the investigation being an ad hominem undermining of the break in. Forgive my confusion.
It's not an ad hominem to search for a suspect who commits a crime. The complete invalidity of the claims arising from the crime notwithstanding, it is illegal to break into a private network and steal data.
Slashdot Mirror
With highish first derivatives of temperature over time being on the order of a couple of degrees C per millennium, and second derivatives operating on the order of .1 degree per millennium per millennium. To treat 1800-2015 as the same as -10000 BC to 1 AD is crazy.
I see, you're someone who heard something, and saw NONE of the numbers. The deltas we see on temperatures are an order of magnitude greater than the energy deltas from the sun. You've never even looked at the data, not even a little. Then you have the gall to form a "we don't know" type political opinion. It's insulting.
Then why was 2008 one of the hottest years on record?
I've read just today it's around 4-6 C higher than 1980s temperature.
Yeah, no. WoW isn't really a big deal anymore.
Except the past 11 years haven't been centered around a maximum, but rather we just passed a minimum in 2008. Have you not even studied your own counter-"theory"?
Which is still a huge overestimation. It's a little less than .2 C per decade.
Or maybe there's a city of local significance, or did you completely miss the point of my post?
Problems with small towns.
1. relative poverty, and very few professional job opportunities..
2. Large portion of population lack perspective
3. Small towns have strong identities but have equally strong Inferiority complexes
1. Not true, I've had 2 high tech jobs out of small towns. I don't know what else to say about that.
2. Bald assertion about the people who live there. Completely unjustified from where I'm sitting too.
3. Again, painfully bald assertion of psychology of a LOT of people
problems with the suburbs
1. Poor planning regarding zoning distribution and transportation. -Everything just takes so freaking long to do compared to a small town.
2. Lack of identity
3. Feels very isolating for people who didn't grow up in one.
1. Not necessarily, but people are separated from everything. From their neighbors by fences, from different subdivisions by artificially twisty roads. From commerce by driving required distances. From industry by frequently hours by car.
2. Not just a lack of identity, but an facade of one, along with an enforced sterility.
3. I don't see what growing up in one has to do with anything. It is isolating, there's all sorts of elements that seem to exist only to isolate.
Problems with cities
1. Crime
2. Its Loud
3. bad schools
4. Neighborhoods with extreme poverty and toxic culture.
5. Hipsters inhabit the nice affordable neighborhoods
6. Have to deal with people shouting out angry profanity on an almost daily basis.
7. The city dynamic gets boring.
1. Not really anymore, crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1980s, with numerous social mechanisms behind those drops, only some of which are politically reversible.
2. Not all parts of cities are loud, that's an impression people get from fiction more than reality. Suburbs tend to be near high velocity roads with constant traffic that is actually worse in some ways. Rural areas are quiet.
3. A self-fulfilling prophecy as wealthy people with kids move to places with "good schools". Of note, some cities have exceptional schools. Not the one I live in, but that's another story.
4. I can't interpret this as anything other than "Oh no minorities". Clarify this point.
5. As opposed to who? What paragon artificial slice of humanity do you interact with daily that is so non-annoying.
6. Never had to even once. Not even ONCE. Again seems like a stereotype out of fiction rather than something you've actually experienced.
7. I never asserted it to be exciting or constantly novel. It's a bit healthier for the human psyche, the environment, and in the long run, the economy. I'm not sure what amazing, non-boring things you think happen in the suburbs.
Or users who rebel.
Guess what? In ancient Rome, they called Rome, "the city" and in England, they call London "the city", and it's similarly true elsewhere in history and the world. The condescension is imagined on your part.
Suburbs seem to be the defining problem from my generation's perspective. It's a cultural wasteland. It lacks identity. And for a generation that has become almost entirely bound to the indoors, most of the proclaimed advantages are unnoticed. The mortgages that go with suburban living look like an anchor to a group that is already mostly overburdened with student loan debt. It looks like despair incarnate.
It'll be a SLOW shift towards urbanization though. Huge chunks of the populace look at the suburbs as what you are supposed to do, particularly once you have children. Falling crime rates and rising transit costs will eventually break that, though.
Ok, so government has a definition and a composition. What's wrong with using the word "government" as short hand for that exact concept?
Reports today indicate a small developer you've never heard of, has altered how they will finance a product you've never heard of. The pricing cited factors commonly referenced in the field the product competes in, but no supporting data was provided. Tune in at 11 for detailed analysis about how free products differ from open source ones, with a panelist who barely understands economics or copyright law.
No. No I wasn't. I was saying that microclimates might have different correct answers, and thus you can identify partisan bias in BOTH directions. We can't see enough detail to determine if this is what happened, because science reporting sucks.
Well the fact that they categorized by zip code may indicate an awareness of this. SOME not-insubstantial number of zip codes within the United States had decreasing average temperatures across the last decade, thanks to things like micro climates and the patterns climate shifts actually occur in. It is not unreasonable to presume that people might falsely believe there was a localized temperature increase when there was not. It's not necessary to oversimplify. It would be nice if THE DATA were available and they had GONE INTO DETAIL in the article, but what can you do?
I really really really really despise articles that are subjective analysis of data that don't include any sort of access to the data itself. "Trust us the numbers say X" is the single most intolerable statement to a rational human being.
What's the lower tech precedent for these rules? I'm not saying they must exist, I just want to be able to contextualize the concern.
I would just like to back up what everyone else is saying. They weren't ad hominem, as per the fact that, in theory, the postings addressed an argument. They did so in a factually incorrect way, but that's irrelevant.
I can't say that's a perspective I've ever endorsed.
Of course it can be invalidated. It hasn't been, but to say it couldn't be is really classifying it as pseudoscience.
Any of the following would be pretty substantial invalidations(and these are off the top of my head):
1. Evidence that the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide are narrower in the near infrared than the nitrogen-oxygen mix our atmosphere currently has.
2. A substantial deviation of multiyear temperature deviation aggregates from the proposed theory(preferably actually negative)
3. A well demonstrated model that maps the past temperatures accurately while incorporating feedback mechanisms that limit temperature increase.(well, this wouldn't be a true invalidation, but it would be a valid competing theory. Funny that we haven't gotten any)
4. Evidence if substantial human induced errors in measurement that could account for the differences of the past few years(a picture of an air conditioner unit doesn't count)
None of the "counter evidence" I've ever heard even begins to address anything like this.
Actually, I get it now, you were suggesting the break in was an ad hominem attack on the scientists, not the investigation being an ad hominem undermining of the break in. Forgive my confusion.
That's a principal that applies to conviction and punishment, not investigation.
What's wrong with you? That's a serious question, please answer it.
It's not an ad hominem to search for a suspect who commits a crime. The complete invalidity of the claims arising from the crime notwithstanding, it is illegal to break into a private network and steal data.
There were only 8 words in my post. Is it so much to ask to read ALL of them?