Please quote where there's hate or vitriol in my response, or anything but observed facts. Hansen predicted AGW quantitatively in his seminal 1982 study and the results confirmed his predictions. Doing that again just kicks the can down the road, to a point where it will progressively more difficult to do anything. Not that I think anything will be done.
Ah, the old denier tactic of mixing up serious science with bogus science reporting in the mass media. There is a reason why there is a "mainstream" in science. It's fact based, it's boring, and it's usually correct.
"The percentage of cases attributed to obesity varied widely for different cancer types but was as high as 40 percent for some cancers, particularly endometrial cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma." http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity
Easy: You need clouds (or at least humidity) to bottle up the heat. If it's always clear at night the ground can cool down despite all those greenhouse gases because water vapor (the strongest greenhouse gas) is low. That's why it gets cool during the night even in hot deserts.
Even just past the coastal hills it gets ugly (and cheap) quickly. Inland Empire, San Bernardino, Palm Springs... they're all too hot in the summer to live there without technical means (aka air conditioning.)
This one's really easy.Simple answer: Wrong predicate. We don't have confidence in long term weather predictions but we do have confidence in long term climate predictions. This is because the former is chaotic while the latter isn't. Remember that the first quantitative predictions by Hansen in 1982 we quite on the money (if a little on the conservative side.)
But you can invest money to keep things the way they are for as long as possible, against market forces, by paying politicians and influencing the public opinion.
The incumbents prefer the status quo because that's where they make their money. If you're entrenched then change is bad. Now apply this premise to fossil fuel companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Please quote where there's hate or vitriol in my response, or anything but observed facts.
Hansen predicted AGW quantitatively in his seminal 1982 study and the results confirmed his predictions. Doing that again just kicks the can down the road, to a point where it will progressively more difficult to do anything.
Not that I think anything will be done.
Confusing the increase with the overall percentage? 4-7% of the baseline is a lot if you look at the delta.
Hansen did predict something verifiable 30 years out and it was verified.
Ah, the old denier tactic of mixing up serious science with bogus science reporting in the mass media.
There is a reason why there is a "mainstream" in science. It's fact based, it's boring, and it's usually correct.
Then you probably noticed that when compared to reality, he was generally on the conservative side.
"The percentage of cases attributed to obesity varied widely for different cancer types but was as high as 40 percent for some cancers, particularly endometrial cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity
"Dietary factors have been thought to account for about 30% of cancers in Western countries1, making diet second
only to tobacco as a preventable cause of cancer."
http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/public_health_nut6.pdf
Did you read Hansen's 1982? If not I suggest you do, and the comparisons with reality this year on its 30-year anniversary.
You're exhibiting your lack of education about the difference between weather and climate.
It's all been done, starting 30 years ago, and the results are in. It happened exactly as you wrote, except for
8. Begin a massive disinformation campaign to avoid having to act on the results.
If you cannot predict accurate within five years why should I believe you can project out thirty to forty or believe that accuracy is better?
Because weather has natural cycles (like ENSO) over a few years that average out over decades.
No, I want to see it. Pass the popcorn. Hollywood's latest thrillers have nothing on it.
Hansen's 1982 predictions were pretty good, only 30% too low, given that quantitative climate science was in its infancy back then.
Easy: You need clouds (or at least humidity) to bottle up the heat. If it's always clear at night the ground can cool down despite all those greenhouse gases because water vapor (the strongest greenhouse gas) is low. That's why it gets cool during the night even in hot deserts.
Even just past the coastal hills it gets ugly (and cheap) quickly. Inland Empire, San Bernardino, Palm Springs... they're all too hot in the summer to live there without technical means (aka air conditioning.)
But most of the rise in cancer rates is caused by people eating crap.
This one's really easy.Simple answer: Wrong predicate.
We don't have confidence in long term weather predictions but we do have confidence in long term climate predictions. This is because the former is chaotic while the latter isn't. Remember that the first quantitative predictions by Hansen in 1982 we quite on the money (if a little on the conservative side.)
Yup, to the tune of a couple 100 million: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTEyNTE
Btrfs performance is bad due to a lot of seeks. With a SSD and Facebook's Flashcache to cache your rotating clunkers it performs very nicely.
I didn't see any mention of opening the 3D graphics drivers or video acceleration. So the open compute code is going to call an opaque blob?
Replying to undo moderation mouso...
But you can invest money to keep things the way they are for as long as possible, against market forces, by paying politicians and influencing the public opinion.
Simple: Being the world's top economic (and possibly military) power includes being the top dog in space.
The incumbents prefer the status quo because that's where they make their money. If you're entrenched then change is bad.
Now apply this premise to fossil fuel companies.
Yeah, Einstein and the Manhattan Project...
Paying customers,like people who want to buy your cards?