IN FACT, your OWN link proves you are flat-out wrong - look at the first graph, it confirms exact this. It shows the Curry model as covering ~1 to ~2.5 - much different than you claim (1.1 to 4.45). Furthermore, reading the summary at Curry's site, you'll see that Curry estimates ~1.8 deg K sensitivity if we allow for unknown heat entrapment in the ocean by a mechanism that we don't understand. Using actual Argo (buoy) data and models which we do know, the sensitivity is ~1.6 deg K.
Now, you want to know how "Real Climate" is lying to you? They claim the models use values around 1 to 2.5 (from their misleading graph and supporting text); yet the IPCC itself says:
The current generation of GCMs[5] covers a range of equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.1C to 4.4C (with a mean value of 3.2C; see Table 8.2 and Box 10.2)... The equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from the latest model version used by modelling groups have increased
Yes, the IPCC says the range of 2.1 to 4.4 deg K is too low and needs to be higher! Clearly "real climate" is simply shilling and effectively lying to cover the facts. I linked straight to the IPCC itself - it in no way says what "real climate" says. And the IPCC models simply do not correlate with actual real-world data.
So at the end of the day, what do you trust? Data or models?
"Typical"* indoor ventilation is supposed to be designed to hold the indoor CO2 levels below 1,000 ppm, or, in more recent codes, designed to be no more than 700 ppm above the outdoor CO2 concentration.
So then we agree that it's OK to 1000 to 1100 PPM CO2? At least, that's what the codes allow... So I'm trying to understand why going from 400 to 410 is a "sucker punch".
Because we're told time-and-again that it is the last 30 years that matter; thus if you're doing a report in 2013, you use the previous 30 years. From the publishing of that data the divergence has only continued. Most IPCC models use a 3.3 deg K sensitivity for CO2, but the actual data suggests about half that.
Those graphs all over-estimate climate sensitivity by a factor of 2 or 3; recent peer-reviewed data points to 1.3 to 1.6 deg K for doubling of CO2, not the 3+ deg K as used by all the IPCC models. Perhaps that's why the models don't match the data, and run quite a bit hotter than actual data.
Siri, Alexa and others shouldn't be allowed to take my words and use them to target advertising for me w/o my express permission.
I could go on and on, but that should give you an idea of where I stand.
Even if that advertising came from Apple or Amazon? If I go into a store and ask a lot of questions about leather belts, should I be surprised if the next time I come in to the store - or get an advertisement from them - they ask or talk about belts?
So what would you consider private, personal information? Not being a dick, just trying to see what people are worried about. Is private, personal information the information I have never shared on the Internet or in public? Or is the issue that - rather than having an investigator take a few months to collate all the public information on me by hand - these companies can scape and collate publicly-available data in a matter of a few seconds?
Well, that's a nice populist sentiment that is not necessarily supported by actual numbers. Looking at slightly old (from 2015) numbers, half of all income tax revenue in California comes from those in the top 1% of income earners. For 2003 to 2014, all years except for one saw at least 40% of total income tax revenues coming from the top 1% of income earners.
I wonder how many of those 1%ers earn their income from CA-based companies that would effectively be shut down by this law? Google, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, etc.
What about marketing companies that actually exist to help companies learn about market demographics? They exist by, essentially, collecting data on consumers and then sharing it out.
Because for a lot of people it will be a money losing proposition. I live in Ventura, CA and my average electric bill is around $120 per month. So if I had new construction, I'd have an extra $25,000 bill added on. At my current consumption rate, I would break even after about 30 years. And that is assuming a 4% value of money (DJIA averages twice that, historically), and I have zero costs of maintenance/repair for the system. Essentially, it's been mandated that my electric bill has just increased, and I have an additional variable cost of power (maintenance) that I need to take care of. Why not just up the power cost in the first place, and build a large solar/wind plant somewhere else with the extra cost?
Yet most of the largest constructs built prior to WW2 were essentially concrete without steel. Fancy that! I do not deny that steel makes it easier, but concrete by itself is an amazing material, especially when put into brick form, arched, or used with wood. Proof: what I've already posted - the Colosseum and St. Peter's Basilica, for starters. Hoover Dam and Grand Coulee Dam - two of the biggest dams built in the US - are also done without steel. Need I go on?
On Tuesday night, as polls were closing for Knox County's primary races for the mayoral election, the county's website displaying the results crashed.
The website simply reports the tally which is done with ballots NOT ON THE WEBSITE! Really, you worked REALLY hard to get your "Russia Russia Ressia!" meme in there... Grow up, Pope...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Even if a person doesn't believe in the "Russia Russia Russia!" meme you keep pushing?
We need Workstation features, the Desktop PC is dead, The Workstation PC is the future of the technology
AMEN! I miss working on my old VAX workstation, using the terminal to control some chunk of a server down the hall, the way my use was limited based upon what other people were doing, and my files were never local - only remote - so easier to lose or get "misplaced" when a tape drive was unmounted... Let's bring back those golden days of thin clients and workstations and central/big brother controlling all!
Didn't Apple copyright having an experience on a computer yet?
They did, but only in context of reducing the quality of that experience, like removing the escape key, making keys that stick, removal of useful ports, etc.
St. Peter's Basilica's central dome doesn't use steel - and it has a ~42m clear span in the middle. You don't have to have something "narrow" because you're not using steel. Just good geometry that puts a quality building material mainly in compression. And it works REALLY well. You do need height when you do an arch - but building 2-3 stories of wood floors inside a given archway isn't really much of a challenge, is it?
So I take it you've never been there? They are about 2 to 4 meters thick, with the thicker walls on the bottom. Really not all that thick considering the size of the thing; it would dwarf most sports arenas in the US, as it covers over 6 acres of land.
Ever done real-time embedded firmware? It's pretty much all functional because it's highly deterministic, stable, and easy to debug with limited UI access. EVERY paradigm has its place; only a rather ignorant engineer would claim "X is a useless paradigm"...
Slashdot Mirror
IN FACT, your OWN link proves you are flat-out wrong - look at the first graph, it confirms exact this. It shows the Curry model as covering ~1 to ~2.5 - much different than you claim (1.1 to 4.45). Furthermore, reading the summary at Curry's site, you'll see that Curry estimates ~1.8 deg K sensitivity if we allow for unknown heat entrapment in the ocean by a mechanism that we don't understand. Using actual Argo (buoy) data and models which we do know, the sensitivity is ~1.6 deg K.
Now, you want to know how "Real Climate" is lying to you? They claim the models use values around 1 to 2.5 (from their misleading graph and supporting text); yet the IPCC itself says:
The current generation of GCMs[5] covers a range of equilibrium climate sensitivity from 2.1C to 4.4C (with a mean value of 3.2C; see Table 8.2 and Box 10.2)... The equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from the latest model version used by modelling groups have increased
Yes, the IPCC says the range of 2.1 to 4.4 deg K is too low and needs to be higher! Clearly "real climate" is simply shilling and effectively lying to cover the facts. I linked straight to the IPCC itself - it in no way says what "real climate" says. And the IPCC models simply do not correlate with actual real-world data.
So at the end of the day, what do you trust? Data or models?
"Typical"* indoor ventilation is supposed to be designed to hold the indoor CO2 levels below 1,000 ppm, or, in more recent codes, designed to be no more than 700 ppm above the outdoor CO2 concentration.
So then we agree that it's OK to 1000 to 1100 PPM CO2? At least, that's what the codes allow... So I'm trying to understand why going from 400 to 410 is a "sucker punch".
Because we're told time-and-again that it is the last 30 years that matter; thus if you're doing a report in 2013, you use the previous 30 years. From the publishing of that data the divergence has only continued. Most IPCC models use a 3.3 deg K sensitivity for CO2, but the actual data suggests about half that.
Those graphs all over-estimate climate sensitivity by a factor of 2 or 3; recent peer-reviewed data points to 1.3 to 1.6 deg K for doubling of CO2, not the 3+ deg K as used by all the IPCC models. Perhaps that's why the models don't match the data, and run quite a bit hotter than actual data.
Doubling the CO2 will add about 1.6 deg K to our temperature; will that be a disaster?
Why would humans be sucker-punched? Typical offices and classrooms are well over 1000 PPM.
Needs more graphene.
Siri, Alexa and others shouldn't be allowed to take my words and use them to target advertising for me w/o my express permission.
I could go on and on, but that should give you an idea of where I stand.
Even if that advertising came from Apple or Amazon? If I go into a store and ask a lot of questions about leather belts, should I be surprised if the next time I come in to the store - or get an advertisement from them - they ask or talk about belts?
So what would you consider private, personal information? Not being a dick, just trying to see what people are worried about. Is private, personal information the information I have never shared on the Internet or in public? Or is the issue that - rather than having an investigator take a few months to collate all the public information on me by hand - these companies can scape and collate publicly-available data in a matter of a few seconds?
Well, that's a nice populist sentiment that is not necessarily supported by actual numbers. Looking at slightly old (from 2015) numbers, half of all income tax revenue in California comes from those in the top 1% of income earners. For 2003 to 2014, all years except for one saw at least 40% of total income tax revenues coming from the top 1% of income earners.
I wonder how many of those 1%ers earn their income from CA-based companies that would effectively be shut down by this law? Google, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, etc.
What about marketing companies that actually exist to help companies learn about market demographics? They exist by, essentially, collecting data on consumers and then sharing it out.
No, Tesla loses money PRIOR to capital expenses. COGS and operations puts them at a net loss; R&D and capital expenses/facilities comes after that.
Because for a lot of people it will be a money losing proposition. I live in Ventura, CA and my average electric bill is around $120 per month. So if I had new construction, I'd have an extra $25,000 bill added on. At my current consumption rate, I would break even after about 30 years. And that is assuming a 4% value of money (DJIA averages twice that, historically), and I have zero costs of maintenance/repair for the system. Essentially, it's been mandated that my electric bill has just increased, and I have an additional variable cost of power (maintenance) that I need to take care of. Why not just up the power cost in the first place, and build a large solar/wind plant somewhere else with the extra cost?
Do you realize this was a for mayorship, NOT President? Apparently AC already came from Idiocracy...
It was Tennessee. They were likely not counting the votes at all and just deciding on the results over drinks in a hotel ballroom.
There's the inner bigot in you coming out...
Concrete is nearly useless without steel.
Yet most of the largest constructs built prior to WW2 were essentially concrete without steel. Fancy that! I do not deny that steel makes it easier, but concrete by itself is an amazing material, especially when put into brick form, arched, or used with wood. Proof: what I've already posted - the Colosseum and St. Peter's Basilica, for starters. Hoover Dam and Grand Coulee Dam - two of the biggest dams built in the US - are also done without steel. Need I go on?
Now THERE is a mayor who can be the "brute squad" at the same time!
On Tuesday night, as polls were closing for Knox County's primary races for the mayoral election, the county's website displaying the results crashed.
The website simply reports the tally which is done with ballots NOT ON THE WEBSITE! Really, you worked REALLY hard to get your "Russia Russia Ressia!" meme in there... Grow up, Pope...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Even if a person doesn't believe in the "Russia Russia Russia!" meme you keep pushing?
FAIL! No step to add graphene...
We need Workstation features, the Desktop PC is dead, The Workstation PC is the future of the technology
AMEN! I miss working on my old VAX workstation, using the terminal to control some chunk of a server down the hall, the way my use was limited based upon what other people were doing, and my files were never local - only remote - so easier to lose or get "misplaced" when a tape drive was unmounted... Let's bring back those golden days of thin clients and workstations and central/big brother controlling all!
Didn't Apple copyright having an experience on a computer yet?
They did, but only in context of reducing the quality of that experience, like removing the escape key, making keys that stick, removal of useful ports, etc.
St. Peter's Basilica's central dome doesn't use steel - and it has a ~42m clear span in the middle. You don't have to have something "narrow" because you're not using steel. Just good geometry that puts a quality building material mainly in compression. And it works REALLY well. You do need height when you do an arch - but building 2-3 stories of wood floors inside a given archway isn't really much of a challenge, is it?
So I take it you've never been there? They are about 2 to 4 meters thick, with the thicker walls on the bottom. Really not all that thick considering the size of the thing; it would dwarf most sports arenas in the US, as it covers over 6 acres of land.
The Colosseum, at "only" 15 stories high, waves in your direction. You can use stone in place of steel quite well...
Ever done real-time embedded firmware? It's pretty much all functional because it's highly deterministic, stable, and easy to debug with limited UI access. EVERY paradigm has its place; only a rather ignorant engineer would claim "X is a useless paradigm"...