Data...good data that the CO2 is man made and oh now BTW it's a solid fact that carbon dioxide + water = carbolic acid and therefore is killing and has killed a hell of a lot of fish. The reef systems may be gone in as little as 20 years.
How did coral reefs survive periods when CO2 was several times higher than today?
Well, you would probably get more than just IDE with that, as TheIDE is quite tightly coupled with the U++ library (http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_3.png, http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_4.png), anyway, ide-wise:
- its C++ code-parsing abilitites (for purposes of code-navigation and 'intelisense') are at the moment said to be better than CDT's or at par with Visual Studio, although the problem is that it parses only the project files (not 'external' headers) http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_5.png.
- if you are rebuilding large projects often, it has very fast build process. It uses two tricks, one widely known (using multiple CPU cores to launch compiler instances), one special (combining files to avoid header reparsing). In practice, on quadcore CPU, it can build up to 16 times faster than plain make.
- works in Win32 and X11.
But there is also a drawback for many users:
- as it adds a strong crossplatform modularity layer, it gets a lot of suffering getting used to it. Simply do not expect your usual Visual Studio copy...
Our ancestors did survive the ice age because the change was slow enough for them to simply walk away from it but when the Himalayan glaciers disappear where do you think the billion plus people who depend on them will walk to? - They can't walk to Bangladesh as it will have become part of the sea bed.
Siberia? That is quite unpopulated area, because generally, temperatures are too harsh today.
You forget to say that cooling is much more problem w.r.t. harvests.
See, we have all kinds of crops. Many of them do just fine in tropics today. None of them can grow in arctic.
For all we know, one thing is sure. We are in warmer period and that will end some day. There is solid evidence that we are in fact at the end of it. IF co2 really causes greenhouse effect, maybe we should consider to pump more of it into the air, just to slow down the transition to the next ice age.
BTW, speaking about poor people in poor countries, maybe somebody should estimate how many already died because of "biofuel". I am speaking here about food prices driven up last year, where one of reasons was market's anticipation of "biofuel" related shortages.
- maybe, global warming is hoax. Now, please, just take this as premise for other points, not as fact
- first of all, if we solely concetrate on reducing co2 levels, this might reduce other pollution as well, but not as effectively as if we have focused on really harmfull substances first.
- anyway, much worse possible problem is if temeperatures start going down (while co2 keep still or rising), high costs of these measures will swing the historical pendulum back and we *might* get another dark age of dismissal of *real* environmental issues.
Sort of: if "science" got wrong this one, nobody will believe it again.... It is too hyped to be tolerated.
"Why retreating ice on *GREEN*land should be any concern?"
Nobody expects Greenland's 3 mile deep ice cap to dissapear this century.
I think you have completely missed my point. It It is called "greenland" for some reason. I believe that there is still much more ice on Greenland than there was 1000 years ago.
In fact, the very name was my first "sceptical signal" w.r.t. AGW.
"Why 0.0001% change in atmospheric gases should affect climate more than 0.1% change in solar output?"
First of all the effect of CO2 is not linear, the absorption rate of IR radiation by CO2 has been known for over a century.
Indeed it was. The absorption rate is nonlinear - it quickly decreases with concentration. You get the most for the first 200ppm.
The rest in models is so called "feedback effect". To get any significant warming, you have to introduce strong positive feedback into the model.
Note the large error bars and also the fact that areosols (soot, ect) have a large cooling effect that masks about half of the effect of CO2.
Well, sceptic would say they are trying to find excuses...:)
The planet will have a global cap and trade system by 2012
So what. New taxes. They will slowly get absorbed into economics and forgotten.
And there is always the China and other emerging countries. I would not hold my breath.
"Second, I think that in 20 years horizont we will see what is true and what is not."
I don't think you need to wait that long, the Artic ice cap is half the size it was in the 80's and much, much thinner.
BTW, I wonder what kind of signal would stop AGW hypothesis.
- If there is drop in temperature by 1 C over 10 years?
- If polar caps get stronger than in 80's?
- If CO2 drops without decreasing industrial emmisions?
(I have my gut feelings that AGW proponets would only add another variable to the model to explain "temporary slowdown", but that is just sceptical me:)
OTOH, I think there is one simple signal that will eventually stop the AGW hysteria in media:
- if temperature drops eventually for one winter and heating expenses (carbon tax included) hits U.S. (and/or worldwide) families...
BTW, the funny thing is that I in fact welcome many things positively influenced by AGW hysteria - I like solar panels, I like electric cars, I like nuclear energy. And I think that SUVs are the most stupid cars on the road - I would never buy one (even if my wife desires it strongly...).
I have only tried to answer your very simple question:
"What would they have to gain from it?"
Anyway, for the record, I am *mild* sceptic w.r.t. AGW, mainly for two simple reasons:
Why retreating ice on *GREEN*land should be any concern?
Why 0.0001% change in atmospheric gases should affect climate more than 0.1% change in solar output? - OK, this is only my guts feeling, but I think sometimes it is good to put numbers into perspective.
And of course, I welcome any counter arguments. (AFAIK (A) counter argument is that the 1998 was really extreme because of el-nino, so anything that follow seems like drop.)
In fact, I was *mild* AGW believer, until I have checked some facts.
Anyway, I think there are two things to mention about AGW:
First, nothing significant will happend w.r.t. CO2 emmissions anyway, besides taxes. Be realistic, I do not see world abandoning fossil fuels, that simply will not happen. If it causes warming, better get ready for it...
Second, I think that in 20 years horizont we will see what is true and what is not. So the question will be resolved.
In fact, my only concern w.r.t. to AGW is that people will not do something utterly stupid to "stop warming", like those proposals to change albedo by spreading some powder on seas or puttin some mirror to orbit, sequestering CO2 from atmosphere and so on. I can imagine that some such mistake could cause irreversible cooling trend or significant drop in plant growths, which is what we should really be worried about.
I think civilization has much higher prospects surviving in tropical climate than in the ice age.
Why would they take part in a scam? What would just about all major scientific organizations and a vast majority of individual scientists involved in climate research have to gain by putting their reputations on the line in order to "take advantage of Gaia-worship and gullible fools"? What would they have to gain from it?
Research grant money?
Note that they are forecasting those dramatic effects tens years in the future. How convenient. If it does now warm as predicted, they will
a) be retired long time ago anyway
b) claim the measures taken based on their advice fixed the problem.
And it is now "climate change" anyway and climate changes all the time, means they cannot be wrong.
Very litte reputation is in danger here, really.
The only possible danger for them is radical global cooling - with emphasis on "radical" - otherwise they can always find many apologies why it is not warming as fast as predicted (which it is not, in fact - since 1998, temperatures hardly changed, if not dropped).
You need them as a distinct abstraction for visual manipulation of components (UI editors etc).
We (http://www.ultimatepp.org) use setter chains as a distinct abstraction for visual manipulation of components.
And it works very smoothly as well...
In fact, if anything, you need attributes, not properties. Or, in another words, some sort of reflection. Anyway, the real-life benefit of adding attribute/reflection is not significant to bother, you just need some non-C++ widget description to be used by UI editor instead.
Properties are another one. This is something that various libraries try to do, and is free in most new OO languages. But just cant be done in C++
I never really understood this effort. What is so good about properties? Why is writing () after getter function name so hard?
And for setters, setter chain is much less verbose anyway, like
But after so many hours of memory leaks and pointer-induced errors...
Memory leaks? In C++?!
Well, if you are still managing the memory using new/delete, then you perhaps deserve it.
Modern C++ code should not contain more than one delete statement per 10000 lines. If you have more, you should learn the language first.
They have found the problem and they know how to fix it. It has nothing to do with previous failures.
Sure, there might be another anomaly in the next launch. And then another. You never know, this is a rocket science after all...
Anyway, what I really like about Spacex is exactly what you dislike. They are not aiming at single shot, they know this is hard. They have full assembly line of rockets, producing one after another.
If they blow something, they just call "next" and try again until all quirks are resolved.
You have to consider that these engines are meant to be ON for very long periods of time. Small acceleration accumulates to pretty big velocities if you can afford to leave engines on.
The main problems is still the same as with ISS. There is nothing really interesting in colonizing the Mars - I mean, long-term.
The only logical reason why people will *want* to *stay* in space, permanently, is when they will be able to live more comfortably in space than on Earth.
Obviously, such thing will require massive technology advancements. But once we have them, warm cosy space habitat with any (pseudo)gravity I wish fills my desires much better than some cold distant red place.
Send robots to Mars. For the money you save by NOT sending humans there, send MORE robots to other planets and asteroids. Find resource, start mining them (still using robots). That is space exploration programme that makes sense. Then, when we have automated orbital factories, in best case sort of self-reproducing, and ample materials to build with, only after then is the time for humans to go to space and STAY there.
What we will probably get instead is ISS equivalent in form of Moon base - maybe. More likely NASA will land once on Moon, then the project will be canceled because it will cost too much:(
Unless we learn how to process materials in space, there no point of whatever colonization.
Establishing base on Mars, ok. Then what? IMO, it would be just another moneypit, just much bigger and much further away. There is really nothing you can really do on Mars until you have materials processing capability.
OTOH, once we learn to in-space material gathering and processing, colonizing Mars is not important any more.
Also note that there is much less solar energy on Mars. Not good for processing materials as well.
Have you noticed that Mars does not have the right gravity for humans nor atmosphere, right?
Whereas achieving correct parameters in space habitat seems to be possible. And once you have those "asteroid mining colonies", habitat building material is no longer a problem.
Considering economy, notice that we have the first rather big space habitat right now, for the fraction of price that is needed to send humans to Mars.
Humans on Mars is waste of resources. I would rather see more humans on earth orbits and sending robots to asteroids.
Shit NASA sends up doesn't blow up with this frequency.
Falcon is completely new design. Look back into fifties when most of current rocket designs were developed. They had initial failures, a lot of them.
Or, of you want something more recent, look at Arian 5. In the first 4 launches, 3 were failures.
Any near-by, that is basically anywhere in our galaxy, gamma ray burst would probably also extinguish most life on earth, though not completely sterilize it.
I would not too much afraid about this one - life on earth exists for VERY long time, so if there would be such possibility, it would have already happened.
AFAIK, gamma ray bursts only happen in specific kinds of young galaxies. Our galaxy appears to be
free of this problem, which is nicely demonstrated by the fact that it has not happened in last 4 billion years..
Of course we are responsible. All these probes circling around and landing on Mars... Think about the huge amounts of fuel spent. No wonder Mars is warming.
Well, as colonizing planetary bodies is the most stupid thing to do anyway, I hope they have found it:)
The future is habitats, not planets. Once you have escaped one gravity well, why should you fall into another?
Slashdot Mirror
Data...good data that the CO2 is man made and oh now BTW it's a solid fact that carbon dioxide + water = carbolic acid and therefore is killing and has killed a hell of a lot of fish. The reef systems may be gone in as little as 20 years.
How did coral reefs survive periods when CO2 was several times higher than today?
I am not 100% sceptic, but sometimes I wonder:
What would convice you the contrary?
10 years of cooling? 10 years of rise in arctic ice sea extent?
Somehow I am afraid that any climate status will be now explained as an effect of "global climate change".
Well, you would probably get more than just IDE with that, as TheIDE is quite tightly coupled with the U++ library (http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_3.png, http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_4.png), anyway, ide-wise:
- it has cool highlighting, including highlighting of C++ blocks and coloring parenthesis (see http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_2.png)
- its C++ code-parsing abilitites (for purposes of code-navigation and 'intelisense') are at the moment said to be better than CDT's or at par with Visual Studio, although the problem is that it parses only the project files (not 'external' headers) http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_5.png.
- if you are rebuilding large projects often, it has very fast build process. It uses two tricks, one widely known (using multiple CPU cores to launch compiler instances), one special (combining files to avoid header reparsing). In practice, on quadcore CPU, it can build up to 16 times faster than plain make.
- works in Win32 and X11.
But there is also a drawback for many users:
- as it adds a strong crossplatform modularity layer, it gets a lot of suffering getting used to it. Simply do not expect your usual Visual Studio copy...
Siberia? That is quite unpopulated area, because generally, temperatures are too harsh today.
See, we have all kinds of crops. Many of them do just fine in tropics today. None of them can grow in arctic.
For all we know, one thing is sure. We are in warmer period and that will end some day. There is solid evidence that we are in fact at the end of it. IF co2 really causes greenhouse effect, maybe we should consider to pump more of it into the air, just to slow down the transition to the next ice age.
BTW, speaking about poor people in poor countries, maybe somebody should estimate how many already died because of "biofuel". I am speaking here about food prices driven up last year, where one of reasons was market's anticipation of "biofuel" related shortages.
Anyway, imagine this.
- maybe, global warming is hoax. Now, please, just take this as premise for other points, not as fact
- first of all, if we solely concetrate on reducing co2 levels, this might reduce other pollution as well, but not as effectively as if we have focused on really harmfull substances first.
- anyway, much worse possible problem is if temeperatures start going down (while co2 keep still or rising), high costs of these measures will swing the historical pendulum back and we *might* get another dark age of dismissal of *real* environmental issues.
Sort of: if "science" got wrong this one, nobody will believe it again.... It is too hyped to be tolerated.
Well, there e.g. was "arctic summer will be ice free by 2013" claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm So, if arctic summer is NOT ice-free by 2013, are you going to reconsider the science?
"Why retreating ice on *GREEN*land should be any concern?" Nobody expects Greenland's 3 mile deep ice cap to dissapear this century.
I think you have completely missed my point. It It is called "greenland" for some reason. I believe that there is still much more ice on Greenland than there was 1000 years ago.
In fact, the very name was my first "sceptical signal" w.r.t. AGW.
"Why 0.0001% change in atmospheric gases should affect climate more than 0.1% change in solar output?" First of all the effect of CO2 is not linear, the absorption rate of IR radiation by CO2 has been known for over a century.
Indeed it was. The absorption rate is nonlinear - it quickly decreases with concentration. You get the most for the first 200ppm.
The rest in models is so called "feedback effect". To get any significant warming, you have to introduce strong positive feedback into the model.
Note the large error bars and also the fact that areosols (soot, ect) have a large cooling effect that masks about half of the effect of CO2.
Well, sceptic would say they are trying to find excuses... :)
The planet will have a global cap and trade system by 2012
So what. New taxes. They will slowly get absorbed into economics and forgotten.
And there is always the China and other emerging countries. I would not hold my breath.
"Second, I think that in 20 years horizont we will see what is true and what is not." I don't think you need to wait that long, the Artic ice cap is half the size it was in the 80's and much, much thinner.
BTW, I wonder what kind of signal would stop AGW hypothesis.
- If there is drop in temperature by 1 C over 10 years?
- If polar caps get stronger than in 80's?
- If CO2 drops without decreasing industrial emmisions?
(I have my gut feelings that AGW proponets would only add another variable to the model to explain "temporary slowdown", but that is just sceptical me :)
OTOH, I think there is one simple signal that will eventually stop the AGW hysteria in media:
- if temperature drops eventually for one winter and heating expenses (carbon tax included) hits U.S. (and/or worldwide) families...
BTW, the funny thing is that I in fact welcome many things positively influenced by AGW hysteria - I like solar panels, I like electric cars, I like nuclear energy. And I think that SUVs are the most stupid cars on the road - I would never buy one (even if my wife desires it strongly...).
"What would they have to gain from it?"
Anyway, for the record, I am *mild* sceptic w.r.t. AGW, mainly for two simple reasons:
Why retreating ice on *GREEN*land should be any concern?
Why 0.0001% change in atmospheric gases should affect climate more than 0.1% change in solar output? - OK, this is only my guts feeling, but I think sometimes it is good to put numbers into perspective.
And of course, I welcome any counter arguments. (AFAIK (A) counter argument is that the 1998 was really extreme because of el-nino, so anything that follow seems like drop.)
In fact, I was *mild* AGW believer, until I have checked some facts.
Anyway, I think there are two things to mention about AGW:
First, nothing significant will happend w.r.t. CO2 emmissions anyway, besides taxes. Be realistic, I do not see world abandoning fossil fuels, that simply will not happen. If it causes warming, better get ready for it...
Second, I think that in 20 years horizont we will see what is true and what is not. So the question will be resolved.
In fact, my only concern w.r.t. to AGW is that people will not do something utterly stupid to "stop warming", like those proposals to change albedo by spreading some powder on seas or puttin some mirror to orbit, sequestering CO2 from atmosphere and so on. I can imagine that some such mistake could cause irreversible cooling trend or significant drop in plant growths, which is what we should really be worried about.
I think civilization has much higher prospects surviving in tropical climate than in the ice age.
Why would they take part in a scam? What would just about all major scientific organizations and a vast majority of individual scientists involved in climate research have to gain by putting their reputations on the line in order to "take advantage of Gaia-worship and gullible fools"? What would they have to gain from it?
Research grant money? Note that they are forecasting those dramatic effects tens years in the future. How convenient. If it does now warm as predicted, they will a) be retired long time ago anyway b) claim the measures taken based on their advice fixed the problem. And it is now "climate change" anyway and climate changes all the time, means they cannot be wrong. Very litte reputation is in danger here, really. The only possible danger for them is radical global cooling - with emphasis on "radical" - otherwise they can always find many apologies why it is not warming as fast as predicted (which it is not, in fact - since 1998, temperatures hardly changed, if not dropped).
You need them as a distinct abstraction for visual manipulation of components (UI editors etc).
We (http://www.ultimatepp.org) use setter chains as a distinct abstraction for visual manipulation of components.
And it works very smoothly as well...
In fact, if anything, you need attributes, not properties. Or, in another words, some sort of reflection. Anyway, the real-life benefit of adding attribute/reflection is not significant to bother, you just need some non-C++ widget description to be used by UI editor instead.
Thanks Mr. Gore! You have saved the planet!
Properties are another one. This is something that various libraries try to do, and is free in most new OO languages. But just cant be done in C++
I never really understood this effort. What is so good about properties? Why is writing () after getter function name so hard? And for setters, setter chain is much less verbose anyway, like
mywidget.NoWantFocus().SetReadOnly();
instead of
mywidget.nowantfocus = true;
mywidget.readonly = true;
Why should any language look like Visual Basic?
But after so many hours of memory leaks and pointer-induced errors...
Memory leaks? In C++?! Well, if you are still managing the memory using new/delete, then you perhaps deserve it. Modern C++ code should not contain more than one delete statement per 10000 lines. If you have more, you should learn the language first.
BTW, note that CEO is deeply invested into SpaceX himself :)
They have found the problem and they know how to fix it. It has nothing to do with previous failures.
Sure, there might be another anomaly in the next launch. And then another. You never know, this is a rocket science after all...
Anyway, what I really like about Spacex is exactly what you dislike. They are not aiming at single shot, they know this is hard. They have full assembly line of rockets, producing one after another.
If they blow something, they just call "next" and try again until all quirks are resolved.
This is the only possible and *right* attitude!
So you can perhaps power VASIMIR even using the sun.
No doubt, small nuclear reactor would be an excellent idea too, especially for Mars and further missions....
You have to consider that these engines are meant to be ON for very long periods of time. Small acceleration accumulates to pretty big velocities if you can afford to leave engines on.
And with this engine, you can.
The only logical reason why people will *want* to *stay* in space, permanently, is when they will be able to live more comfortably in space than on Earth.
Obviously, such thing will require massive technology advancements. But once we have them, warm cosy space habitat with any (pseudo)gravity I wish fills my desires much better than some cold distant red place.
Send robots to Mars. For the money you save by NOT sending humans there, send MORE robots to other planets and asteroids. Find resource, start mining them (still using robots). That is space exploration programme that makes sense. Then, when we have automated orbital factories, in best case sort of self-reproducing, and ample materials to build with, only after then is the time for humans to go to space and STAY there.
What we will probably get instead is ISS equivalent in form of Moon base - maybe. More likely NASA will land once on Moon, then the project will be canceled because it will cost too much :(
Establishing base on Mars, ok. Then what? IMO, it would be just another moneypit, just much bigger and much further away. There is really nothing you can really do on Mars until you have materials processing capability.
OTOH, once we learn to in-space material gathering and processing, colonizing Mars is not important any more.
Also note that there is much less solar energy on Mars. Not good for processing materials as well.
Whereas achieving correct parameters in space habitat seems to be possible. And once you have those "asteroid mining colonies", habitat building material is no longer a problem.
Considering economy, notice that we have the first rather big space habitat right now, for the fraction of price that is needed to send humans to Mars.
Humans on Mars is waste of resources. I would rather see more humans on earth orbits and sending robots to asteroids.
Shit NASA sends up doesn't blow up with this frequency.
Falcon is completely new design. Look back into fifties when most of current rocket designs were developed. They had initial failures, a lot of them. Or, of you want something more recent, look at Arian 5. In the first 4 launches, 3 were failures.
Any near-by, that is basically anywhere in our galaxy, gamma ray burst would probably also extinguish most life on earth, though not completely sterilize it.
I would not too much afraid about this one - life on earth exists for VERY long time, so if there would be such possibility, it would have already happened.
AFAIK, gamma ray bursts only happen in specific kinds of young galaxies. Our galaxy appears to be free of this problem, which is nicely demonstrated by the fact that it has not happened in last 4 billion years..
Of course we are responsible. All these probes circling around and landing on Mars... Think about the huge amounts of fuel spent. No wonder Mars is warming.
Well, as colonizing planetary bodies is the most stupid thing to do anyway, I hope they have found it:) The future is habitats, not planets. Once you have escaped one gravity well, why should you fall into another?