None of your links are to peer reviewed research articles. Three of your statements refer to changes in trends BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY. Your fourth statement amount Britain never seeing snow again is just made up BS. That has never been stated in any research paper on climate.
Tools are simpler and easier to use than ever, and this guy is mistaking nostalgia and innocence for actual difference.
Developing anything other than a trivial web application requires in depth knowledge of several different technologies, along with a couple different languages, knowledge of browser quirks (no those big libraries don't always get them all), etc. Compared to traditional application development, web development is a bloated and complex mess, or as the original author wrote:
"The web is just an enormous stack of kluges upon hacks upon misbegotten designs".
This statement is absolutely true. The web was never intended for "applications". That happened later. And instead of going back and making the web more conducive for applications, we basically got the equivalent of bad case of technological diarrhea smeared across the web hoping that somehow it would just make everything stick together and work.
Well, it works somewhat. But it certainly isn't pretty.
But good developers make less mistakes in a language where there's less freedom...
Some of us like having the training wheels off our bikes.
Even the best bikers in the world end up going over the handle bars into a ditch every now and then. What will be your excuse when you and your team cost some company millions of dollars due to delays and bugs that wouldn't have occurred if you had simply ditched your ego and went with the safer choice?
Unless you know everyone on the project team beyond awkwardly greeting them once in a while by the water cooler, choosing the best technology to use on a project based on what let's you be a SUPA HACKA is not only naive, but will most likely horribly backfire. Always assume your team will consist of the muppets and plan your tools and technologies accordingly.
Isn't the only reason that they vote for Democrats is because the Republicans want to kick them out of the country?
What? Of course republicans don't want to kick them out of the country! They LOVE Mexican immigrants! Dirt cheap labor, and they can't even complain if you mistreat them. If they start to get uppity you just threaten to send them back across the border.
So why are they so anti-immigration then? They're not. Tougher immigration laws means they can keep stringing these poor people along and treat them even worse. Meanwhile, inside those immigration bills they slip in little extras like reducing the punishments for employing illegals and such. Just a little "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" for the big money donors.
Basically, republicans are about as anti-immigration as the DEA is anti-illegal drugs.
Or maybe the universe is so competitive that anyone who announces their presence eats the bad end of a relativistic weapon...
But why? That's the question you need to answer. Why would any civilization advanced enough for true interstellar travel even be slightly interested in smashing the Earth with a relativistic weapon, or any other kind of weapon?
Any civilization that advanced wouldn't NEED Earth for anything. They could get everything they need and more from countless worlds, asteroids, comets, and whatever else they happen to come across and in much greater quantities than our planet can provide. Through technology they may be practically immortal as well. They may only come by once every couple million years or so to see how things are going.
At best, Earth would be little more than an idle curiosity. It would be something to watch and study, and with their technological level they could do so completely undetected if they so chose. But it's more likely that such an advanced civilization simply doesn't care. We're a primitive barely aware species on a little speck of rock.
Tenure exists to ensure that professors can pursue unpopular lines of inquiry without being troubled by university politics. It makes no sense in primary or secondary education.
Until teachers get fired for teaching evolution or climate change.:P
The Thwaites Glacier is melting because of Geothermal heat rather than AGW?
No. It isn't. Read the paper instead of making inferences from a summary that is significantly lacking in details.
Scientists knew there was geothermal heat contributing to base melting of the glacier. Most places on Earth have a tiny amount of geothermal heat flux so underneath most glaciers there some small amount of melting due to this heat. On average, the geothermal flux on Earth is about 65 milliwatts/square meter.
This paper was looking to quantify the geothermal flux under the glacier so that they could model the behavior more accurately. It turns out the the average geothermal flux under the glacier is around 120 milliwatts/square meter with some areas going as high as 200 milliwatts/square meter. This adds a little bit more base melt and thus allows the glacier to move a little bit faster.
Keep in mind, these are milliwatts we're talking about, so it certainly isn't melting a lot. But since it is base melt it is contributing to glacier movement speed. This contributes to the ice loss already occurring due to warmer temperatures.
You can't have a balanced discussion when the people involved want to remain willfully ignorant of the science. Check that, you can't have a balanced discussion when the people involved want to deny reality (hence the term "denier"). If science and reality can't convince someone that something is happening, you're just wasting time and resources that could be better put to use elsewhere.
Well, not necessarily. If we can integrate gravity into the GUT, we may be able to create and manipulate gravitational fields like we do with electricity and magnetism. But that's also assuming that the mechanism for creating and controlling such fields isn't prohibitive which is a pretty big assumption.
It's not just machine time. It's also personnel time, electricity, possibly wasted time for others since resources were being used, etc. It seems that the machines he was using didn't have GPUs so it was CPU only mining. This would have consumed a fair chunk of time and resources to generate that $8K-$10K.
This guy is incredibly stupid. I can't imagine what was going through his head when he tried to do this.
It's not the primary cause. It is a contributing cause, and is perfectly consistent with global warming. Global warming is a combination of factors that lead to warmer global temperatures. Increased GHGs are just one factor.
There have been more than a few stories that go this route. Some character starts with with the best intentions. They want to make things better. They finally win some small amount of power and try to change things for the better. But there's another obstacle blocking the way. Now there are two paths to take. One will get them to their goal quicker but requires some sort of morally gray compromise (maybe not much of one, but it's there). The other is a long arduous process which may end up in failure since their enemies aren't exactly moral. The character chooses the more expedient path and things seem to go well until they hit another obstacle where another choice is made. The process repeats again and again, with their choices going from morally gray to black. By the end of the story, the enemies are defeated but now the hero has become the very thing it was fighting against.
In their mind, we simply don't understand that they are doing this "for our protection". It's a sacrifice for the greater good. Anyone who opposes that is obviously an enemy, and since they have the power they can go ahead and do whatever they deem "necessary" whether we "understand" or not.
In this we agree. Cryptocoin mining, no matter which coin you mine, is not profitable for anyone except really large players. Coin difficulties increase with overall network hashing rates, so any hashing power you have is effectively reduced every time the difficulty rises. This is something that people don't take into consideration when they go and buy those big ASIC rigs for $10,000 thinking that they're reach break even in a month. Honestly, if the machines were that profitable then the companies making them would just keep them and mine on their own, as it would be more profitable than just selling the hardware.
If anyone reading this is planning on getting into mining, thoroughly research the subject and make sure you correctly calculate projections.
Well, now that money == speech politicians are deaf to all but the wealthiest.
We have legalized bribery and all but legalized corruption with ever more sweeping powers being granted to the executive in an effort to ensure "peace and security". This does not bode well.
Later the parent discovers that the AGW industry has a larger reach, controls more government bodies, and is screwing over developing nations, under the guise of "helping" them.
Yeah, because I can't count how many times we've gone to war over some other country's solar panels, overthrown democracies to secure their wind power farms for ourselves, and ruthlessly crushed third world nations for their geothermal resources. I mean it's not like Exxon makes more money in one year than all green-power companies combined or anything. If it wasn't for the billions of dollars of tax payer money flowing into the pockets of oil companies as subsidies, why the fossil fuel industry would just shrivel up and die.
Oh, and there is a rainbow colored talking platypus eating raspberry cake behind you. He seems to think you're more disconnected from reality than he is.
Re:Substitute "China" or "Soviet Russia"
on
Why Lavabit Shut Down
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We all live in prisons. It's just that ours has better marketing.:)
What historical observations is this to be compared with? By the sounds of it there is nothing prior to 2005 - certainly nothing in the 40s thru 80s. Given that the few researchers down there are not running around the perimeter of the continent checking on where ice ends and sea begins, how do we place the current observation in context? Seems that we can't.
Reading is a useful skill. Practice it. The research cites their sources and methods. Feel free to disagree and put forward your own work to show why they're wrong.
You're citing Judith Curry and WUWT in a climate discussion. You may as well cite The Onion and The Weekly World News. They have almost as much credibility, and are a hell of a lot more entertaining.
Slashdot Mirror
None of your links are to peer reviewed research articles. Three of your statements refer to changes in trends BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY. Your fourth statement amount Britain never seeing snow again is just made up BS. That has never been stated in any research paper on climate.
No, it isn't.
Tools are simpler and easier to use than ever, and this guy is mistaking nostalgia and innocence for actual difference.
Developing anything other than a trivial web application requires in depth knowledge of several different technologies, along with a couple different languages, knowledge of browser quirks (no those big libraries don't always get them all), etc. Compared to traditional application development, web development is a bloated and complex mess, or as the original author wrote:
"The web is just an enormous stack of kluges upon hacks upon misbegotten designs".
This statement is absolutely true. The web was never intended for "applications". That happened later. And instead of going back and making the web more conducive for applications, we basically got the equivalent of bad case of technological diarrhea smeared across the web hoping that somehow it would just make everything stick together and work.
Well, it works somewhat. But it certainly isn't pretty.
But good developers make less mistakes in a language where there's less freedom...
Some of us like having the training wheels off our bikes.
Even the best bikers in the world end up going over the handle bars into a ditch every now and then. What will be your excuse when you and your team cost some company millions of dollars due to delays and bugs that wouldn't have occurred if you had simply ditched your ego and went with the safer choice?
Unless you know everyone on the project team beyond awkwardly greeting them once in a while by the water cooler, choosing the best technology to use on a project based on what let's you be a SUPA HACKA is not only naive, but will most likely horribly backfire. Always assume your team will consist of the muppets and plan your tools and technologies accordingly.
How to improve the oven has been known for ages...
Yeah, don't let dumbasses near them.
/&%#%^&*)^ADVkjR$%^$E)!HJLGAZ^&R%\jkghlk/^
Random garbage or valid perl?
Spoiler: "DRINK MORE OVALTINE!"
So erotic is when you use quarks, and exotic is when you use the whole Higgs Boson?
Did jupiter or just yell at her?
JavaScript was developed by a Sith Lord.
Isn't the only reason that they vote for Democrats is because the Republicans want to kick them out of the country?
What? Of course republicans don't want to kick them out of the country! They LOVE Mexican immigrants! Dirt cheap labor, and they can't even complain if you mistreat them. If they start to get uppity you just threaten to send them back across the border.
So why are they so anti-immigration then? They're not. Tougher immigration laws means they can keep stringing these poor people along and treat them even worse. Meanwhile, inside those immigration bills they slip in little extras like reducing the punishments for employing illegals and such. Just a little "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" for the big money donors.
Basically, republicans are about as anti-immigration as the DEA is anti-illegal drugs.
Or maybe the universe is so competitive that anyone who announces their presence eats the bad end of a relativistic weapon...
But why? That's the question you need to answer. Why would any civilization advanced enough for true interstellar travel even be slightly interested in smashing the Earth with a relativistic weapon, or any other kind of weapon?
Any civilization that advanced wouldn't NEED Earth for anything. They could get everything they need and more from countless worlds, asteroids, comets, and whatever else they happen to come across and in much greater quantities than our planet can provide. Through technology they may be practically immortal as well. They may only come by once every couple million years or so to see how things are going.
At best, Earth would be little more than an idle curiosity. It would be something to watch and study, and with their technological level they could do so completely undetected if they so chose. But it's more likely that such an advanced civilization simply doesn't care. We're a primitive barely aware species on a little speck of rock.
Tenure exists to ensure that professors can pursue unpopular lines of inquiry without being troubled by university politics. It makes no sense in primary or secondary education.
Until teachers get fired for teaching evolution or climate change. :P
The Thwaites Glacier is melting because of Geothermal heat rather than AGW?
No. It isn't. Read the paper instead of making inferences from a summary that is significantly lacking in details.
Scientists knew there was geothermal heat contributing to base melting of the glacier. Most places on Earth have a tiny amount of geothermal heat flux so underneath most glaciers there some small amount of melting due to this heat. On average, the geothermal flux on Earth is about 65 milliwatts/square meter.
This paper was looking to quantify the geothermal flux under the glacier so that they could model the behavior more accurately. It turns out the the average geothermal flux under the glacier is around 120 milliwatts/square meter with some areas going as high as 200 milliwatts/square meter. This adds a little bit more base melt and thus allows the glacier to move a little bit faster.
Keep in mind, these are milliwatts we're talking about, so it certainly isn't melting a lot. But since it is base melt it is contributing to glacier movement speed. This contributes to the ice loss already occurring due to warmer temperatures.
You can't have a balanced discussion when the people involved want to remain willfully ignorant of the science. Check that, you can't have a balanced discussion when the people involved want to deny reality (hence the term "denier"). If science and reality can't convince someone that something is happening, you're just wasting time and resources that could be better put to use elsewhere.
Well, not necessarily. If we can integrate gravity into the GUT, we may be able to create and manipulate gravitational fields like we do with electricity and magnetism. But that's also assuming that the mechanism for creating and controlling such fields isn't prohibitive which is a pretty big assumption.
Would you like a couchDB to lie on?
It's not just machine time. It's also personnel time, electricity, possibly wasted time for others since resources were being used, etc. It seems that the machines he was using didn't have GPUs so it was CPU only mining. This would have consumed a fair chunk of time and resources to generate that $8K-$10K.
This guy is incredibly stupid. I can't imagine what was going through his head when he tried to do this.
The primary cause of glaciers shrinking is particulates in the atmosphere. This has been reported many times, but it doesn't fit with the whole Global Warming sound bite so it's generally ignored.
It's not the primary cause. It is a contributing cause, and is perfectly consistent with global warming. Global warming is a combination of factors that lead to warmer global temperatures. Increased GHGs are just one factor.
You seem like a sensible person.
I agree. And because you are so sensible you should probably try this one amazing product.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There have been more than a few stories that go this route. Some character starts with with the best intentions. They want to make things better. They finally win some small amount of power and try to change things for the better. But there's another obstacle blocking the way. Now there are two paths to take. One will get them to their goal quicker but requires some sort of morally gray compromise (maybe not much of one, but it's there). The other is a long arduous process which may end up in failure since their enemies aren't exactly moral. The character chooses the more expedient path and things seem to go well until they hit another obstacle where another choice is made. The process repeats again and again, with their choices going from morally gray to black. By the end of the story, the enemies are defeated but now the hero has become the very thing it was fighting against.
In their mind, we simply don't understand that they are doing this "for our protection". It's a sacrifice for the greater good. Anyone who opposes that is obviously an enemy, and since they have the power they can go ahead and do whatever they deem "necessary" whether we "understand" or not.
Bitcoin mining is for suckers...
In this we agree. Cryptocoin mining, no matter which coin you mine, is not profitable for anyone except really large players. Coin difficulties increase with overall network hashing rates, so any hashing power you have is effectively reduced every time the difficulty rises. This is something that people don't take into consideration when they go and buy those big ASIC rigs for $10,000 thinking that they're reach break even in a month. Honestly, if the machines were that profitable then the companies making them would just keep them and mine on their own, as it would be more profitable than just selling the hardware.
If anyone reading this is planning on getting into mining, thoroughly research the subject and make sure you correctly calculate projections.
Well, now that money == speech politicians are deaf to all but the wealthiest.
We have legalized bribery and all but legalized corruption with ever more sweeping powers being granted to the executive in an effort to ensure "peace and security". This does not bode well.
Later the parent discovers that the AGW industry has a larger reach, controls more government bodies, and is screwing over developing nations, under the guise of "helping" them.
Yeah, because I can't count how many times we've gone to war over some other country's solar panels, overthrown democracies to secure their wind power farms for ourselves, and ruthlessly crushed third world nations for their geothermal resources. I mean it's not like Exxon makes more money in one year than all green-power companies combined or anything. If it wasn't for the billions of dollars of tax payer money flowing into the pockets of oil companies as subsidies, why the fossil fuel industry would just shrivel up and die.
Oh, and there is a rainbow colored talking platypus eating raspberry cake behind you. He seems to think you're more disconnected from reality than he is.
We all live in prisons. It's just that ours has better marketing. :)
What historical observations is this to be compared with? By the sounds of it there is nothing prior to 2005 - certainly nothing in the 40s thru 80s. Given that the few researchers down there are not running around the perimeter of the continent checking on where ice ends and sea begins, how do we place the current observation in context? Seems that we can't.
Reading is a useful skill. Practice it. The research cites their sources and methods. Feel free to disagree and put forward your own work to show why they're wrong.
You're citing Judith Curry and WUWT in a climate discussion. You may as well cite The Onion and The Weekly World News. They have almost as much credibility, and are a hell of a lot more entertaining.