Get an unlocked phone with a removable SIM card (which excludes anything Verizon sells).
I just pop the SIM out of my Verizon phone (Samsung Galaxy Note 2) and pop in my foreign SIM (China, Hong Kong) and it works great. No need to call Verizon to unlock anything - it just works.
I guess swapping out the Verizon LTE SIM card and dropping in my China Mobile or PCCW SIM cards (China and Hong Kong, respectively) never can work. I guess those last dozen trips that I've done that with my Verizon Note 2 were simply figments of my imagination. Having my local China/Hong Kong phone numbers active, making calls, getting and sending texts, downloading e-mails, browsing the web, using Google Maps - yeah, can't have been real.
The data, one set to which I linked. We've had a solid 30 years of good data collected so far - given the number of cycles in known climate drivers (ENSO, PDO/ADO, Milankovich, etc) that have periods of that length or more, it seems pretty shaky to make the claims that are being made. For example the dataset I linked to - the peaks have been regularly WARMER during each interglacial period over the last several hundred thousand years. How is this peak during the interglacial period different - other than being colder?
Interesting little factoid: in the 2008 elections, there was exactly ONE African amongst the Presidential candidates and their wives - Teresa Heinz Kerry. All candidates, and all the other spouses, were not African (as in, not born in Africa). In this case, the Ethiopian physicist is African, but not African-American. If you really want to learn about the differences, start with the economic disparity between African-born and American-born people of African descent. It's not racial background that matters, but culture.
by this logic, white people are the craziest most fsked up "culture" in history...look at the 20th century;s worst...all white men
Pol Pot (killed 20% of his population) and Mao Tse Tung (70+ million dead) would be cases for the opposite, as the former rates as the worst from a percentage standpoint and the latter as the worst from an absolute numbers standpoint...
Gross margins are NOT net profit margins. Many companies have gross margins in the 30-40% range and still lose money - NRE costs, operations costs, sales costs, taxes - all will reduce the gross margin to near - or below - zero. The facts are there in the article I linked - if it wasn't for the Government subsidies and sales of emissions credits, Tesla would be losing money.
If Tesla can make a full-sized sedan with a 265 mile range (85KWh battery) for $73,570 while averaging a 25% profit margin there's no reason why Fiat shouldn't be able to make a profit selling a much smaller car with a much smaller battery and a much smaller range.
Tesla actually loses money on their cars, they make a profit by selling emissions credits to other companies. The car side of the business is a money loser; the emissions-selling side makes their profit.
By official estimates the Monterey Shale formation makes up 2/3 of the shale reserves in the US and by some estimates 1/3 of all crude reserves in the US
What about the Green River shale formation which is estimated to have 3 TRILLION barrels of oil? I don't get how that 13.7 billion barrels originally estimated in the Monterey formation comprised 2/3rds of the shale reserves, when we have a 3 TRILLION barrel reserve. By my count, it's around 1/3rd of 1 percent.
In much the same way a 38 special is designed to minimize injury as compared to a 357. A car can be designed to minimize damage, but that's still meaning breaking both legs, versus both legs and an arm.
Now compare that to the error range, the confidence interval of the data. You'll find the "trend" is so far buried in the noise you could pick out just about any signal you wanted - including sinusoidal signals.
How do you figure? If you're published, you've survived peer-review. Peer-review isn't about seeing if you conform to the latest theories - it's about ensuring your data is accurate, valid and repeatable (or at least published in its entirety) and your conclusions logical.
If CO2 is *NOT* a following temperature, what is your explanation for the fact that temperatures are not rising along with it?
Short term natural variability. The 17 years of supposed no rise in temperature is too short a period for the signal to rise above the noise and that can be proven statistically.
Not according to noted climatologist Dr. Benjamin Santer. Seventeen years is, in fact, plenty of time to "discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere".
If the only thing which affected temperature was CO2 you'd have a point. As there are many things which affect global temperatures, you are not only wrong, but wrong and you managed to show everyone you know very little about this. Well done.
One subtlety that you may have missed - apparently those other tings which affect global temperatures not only equal, but exceed the effect of CO2 (as would be the logical conclusion from your statement above). Making the concern over CO2 a concern over a relatively minor (at best) cause of any climate change. Perhaps we'd be better served in identifying and quantifying these other things since they are apparently the drivers of climate change?
Yet here we are, published papers disputing man-caused climate change. Contrary to the claim of the GP. And the best you can do is attack the character of just one such scientist who's made these suppposed non-existent papers. Facts are facts, hard claims are hard claims, and when those claims are proven to be false (more than 0 means greater than 0) the wise, honest person would simply say "yes, I was wrong" and carry on. The fanatic carries on as if it is a religion, attacking the "heretics" who dare question his chosen religion and ignores the facts counter to his beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Get an unlocked phone with a removable SIM card (which excludes anything Verizon sells).
I just pop the SIM out of my Verizon phone (Samsung Galaxy Note 2) and pop in my foreign SIM (China, Hong Kong) and it works great. No need to call Verizon to unlock anything - it just works.
I guess swapping out the Verizon LTE SIM card and dropping in my China Mobile or PCCW SIM cards (China and Hong Kong, respectively) never can work. I guess those last dozen trips that I've done that with my Verizon Note 2 were simply figments of my imagination. Having my local China/Hong Kong phone numbers active, making calls, getting and sending texts, downloading e-mails, browsing the web, using Google Maps - yeah, can't have been real.
Either that, or you don't know of what you speak.
I think it's the latter...
Not according to my friends from York...
"escape the office by 6pm for a date" - not just fiction, but comedic fantasy!
The data, one set to which I linked. We've had a solid 30 years of good data collected so far - given the number of cycles in known climate drivers (ENSO, PDO/ADO, Milankovich, etc) that have periods of that length or more, it seems pretty shaky to make the claims that are being made. For example the dataset I linked to - the peaks have been regularly WARMER during each interglacial period over the last several hundred thousand years. How is this peak during the interglacial period different - other than being colder?
Interesting little factoid: in the 2008 elections, there was exactly ONE African amongst the Presidential candidates and their wives - Teresa Heinz Kerry. All candidates, and all the other spouses, were not African (as in, not born in Africa). In this case, the Ethiopian physicist is African, but not African-American. If you really want to learn about the differences, start with the economic disparity between African-born and American-born people of African descent. It's not racial background that matters, but culture.
by this logic, white people are the craziest most fsked up "culture" in history...look at the 20th century;s worst...all white men
Pol Pot (killed 20% of his population) and Mao Tse Tung (70+ million dead) would be cases for the opposite, as the former rates as the worst from a percentage standpoint and the latter as the worst from an absolute numbers standpoint...
Circumspect would be more like it...
I wonder if the deal includes Iovine's soul
You can't include something that is a fiction...
"nominal statis" - what is nominal and what is static? The reality is that climate change is the norm; a static climate is abnormal.
Green River contains about 3 trillion barrels, with half of that recoverable by current means. Monterey was never a significant shale oil deposit.
Gross margins are NOT net profit margins. Many companies have gross margins in the 30-40% range and still lose money - NRE costs, operations costs, sales costs, taxes - all will reduce the gross margin to near - or below - zero. The facts are there in the article I linked - if it wasn't for the Government subsidies and sales of emissions credits, Tesla would be losing money.
If Tesla can make a full-sized sedan with a 265 mile range (85KWh battery) for $73,570 while averaging a 25% profit margin there's no reason why Fiat shouldn't be able to make a profit selling a much smaller car with a much smaller battery and a much smaller range.
Tesla actually loses money on their cars, they make a profit by selling emissions credits to other companies. The car side of the business is a money loser; the emissions-selling side makes their profit.
By official estimates the Monterey Shale formation makes up 2/3 of the shale reserves in the US and by some estimates 1/3 of all crude reserves in the US
What about the Green River shale formation which is estimated to have 3 TRILLION barrels of oil? I don't get how that 13.7 billion barrels originally estimated in the Monterey formation comprised 2/3rds of the shale reserves, when we have a 3 TRILLION barrel reserve. By my count, it's around 1/3rd of 1 percent.
In much the same way a 38 special is designed to minimize injury as compared to a 357. A car can be designed to minimize damage, but that's still meaning breaking both legs, versus both legs and an arm.
And even if they were, a car is engineered to minimise its ability to cause injury and damage.
For its occupants, yes; for those it strikes, not so much...
Now compare that to the error range, the confidence interval of the data. You'll find the "trend" is so far buried in the noise you could pick out just about any signal you wanted - including sinusoidal signals.
Yes, the minimum time. Meaning we should need 17 years or more. Well, we're at 17+ years - and no warming. How long is the maximum?
Look at the confidence interval. You'll find we're well within the error bars - meaning the change could be up or down.
How do you figure? If you're published, you've survived peer-review. Peer-review isn't about seeing if you conform to the latest theories - it's about ensuring your data is accurate, valid and repeatable (or at least published in its entirety) and your conclusions logical.
If CO2 is *NOT* a following temperature, what is your explanation for the fact that temperatures are not rising along with it?
Short term natural variability. The 17 years of supposed no rise in temperature is too short a period for the signal to rise above the noise and that can be proven statistically.
Not according to noted climatologist Dr. Benjamin Santer. Seventeen years is, in fact, plenty of time to "discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere".
If the only thing which affected temperature was CO2 you'd have a point. As there are many things which affect global temperatures, you are not only wrong, but wrong and you managed to show everyone you know very little about this. Well done.
One subtlety that you may have missed - apparently those other tings which affect global temperatures not only equal, but exceed the effect of CO2 (as would be the logical conclusion from your statement above). Making the concern over CO2 a concern over a relatively minor (at best) cause of any climate change. Perhaps we'd be better served in identifying and quantifying these other things since they are apparently the drivers of climate change?
By definition, some types of wetland cannot form along coats.
You clearly have not been out in a good strong rain in Seattle. That wet land most definitely can form along - and through - coats.
How DARE you bring logic and reason into an environmental/anti-man screed! Don't you know we have hand-wringing to do?
Yet here we are, published papers disputing man-caused climate change. Contrary to the claim of the GP. And the best you can do is attack the character of just one such scientist who's made these suppposed non-existent papers. Facts are facts, hard claims are hard claims, and when those claims are proven to be false (more than 0 means greater than 0) the wise, honest person would simply say "yes, I was wrong" and carry on. The fanatic carries on as if it is a religion, attacking the "heretics" who dare question his chosen religion and ignores the facts counter to his beliefs.