No. The evidence has already mounted to plenty certain a while ago.
They just don't like the consequences, which is that their preferred ideology of selfish greed might result in the biggest catastrophe for human civilization since the start of civilization.
The end of the last Ice Age is commonly called "prehistoric".
History is generally considered to start with the beginning of organized civilization and literacy, which profoundly changes the structure and quantity of evidence available to the scholar.
By the way, the delta in average temperature from Ice Age to now was about 5 degrees K. With a business as usual greenhouse scenario, which is exactly what we're on (if not worse), it will be about 5 degrees K hotter. Doesn't seem like that much does it?
In the last Ice Age the glaciers were more than a mile thick in New York. That's 5 degrees. We're barreling towards a Heat Age as extreme in the other direction.
"Why has the global temperature not risen in the last 10 years?"
Citation needed.
"Why hasn't new ice core data on how fast climate change has happened in the past been put into the climate models?"
They're working on it. You need validated physical and biological models to do this. (Of course the denialists will then disbelieve them because they're models). What the consequences of this fact is that natural feedbacks and feedforwards in the climate system possibly could make the climate response to greenhouse alterations much worse and more rapid than predicted now.
Temperatures have risen, and the changes in atmospheric radiative properties have been observed and confirmed for ever.
There was a major prediction about global warming in a Nature article in 1980. The understanding then was substantially less mature and there was no clear-cut observed signal in the data at that time (as we know now, fossil fuel soot was temporarily counteracting increased greenhouse forcing). Since then, observed data have turned out the way that it was predicted then, and the understanding of the fundamental physics then is the same as now.
The predictions are not groundless, and the models aren't wrong.
The hypotheses HAVE been reinforced and confirmed by observable facts, over and over and and over and over and over.
No, anybody who disagrees or is skeptical is encouraged to submit their data and reasoning and assumption and physics. And others will also be skeptical of those as well and examine them.
This "issue" is not an issue any more than the question in cardiology of whether blood circulation arises from the heart or the gall bladder.
This comment is not (Score:5 Iinsightful) in the slightest, in fact it's aggressively ignorant, and snarky about it no less.
No scientist denies that the physics of the solar insolation is critical---after all, without solar insolation the entire mechanism of the greenhouse effect wouldn't even matter very much!
The actual point is what actual changes in solar insolation and other physical mechanisms have occurred over recent times with reliable climate records. Changes in the Sun have been very small, and do not explain observed climate changes, as opposed to other changes such as those from human activities which do explain observed data. This means we should use models of physics which include them for predicting the future and governing human behavior.
Plenty of mainstream climate predictions have come true already. The true disbelievers are gonna disbelieve, because they don't like the consequences of the inconvenient truth.
Insolation is obviously the most important basic physics driver of climate, as without a Sun, the Earth would be slightly warmer than the 3K equilibrium with cosmic background radiation. But so what?
The point is that *changes* in solar input over the last 100 years have not been important in causing *changes* in climate.
The evidence for greenhouse gas forcing comes from the physics of the atmosphere and extensive direct measurements of infrared properties of it from ground, aircraft, balloons and spacecraft.
This is by far the most certain part.
The signal from AGW has not been difficult to detect at all. That's the point of the article.
Of course the exposure as mentioned by many other posters is set for bright conditions. But even if the exposure had been changed, you would not perceive city illumination and shown in the "earth maps".
The photographs/maps showing the city lights have been heavily processed and derived from many raw orbital photographs.
In the natural state it is very difficult to make out artificial lighting even if dark adjusted.
"It makes absolutely no sense. Not only does China have nothing to gain by disrupting our economy that way, they have a lot to lose. It would also be considered an act of war, and one that would be sure to align pretty much the whole planet against them."
No it wouldn't. People would probably blame the Jews and enjoy the USA's hurt.
Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction unless accompanied by an airforce or major artillery with custom-designed and manufactured (i.e. NOT 'improvised') technical capabilities. There needs to be significant infrastructure and training.
There is exactly zero chance that Saddam could conduct an aerial bombardement of the US or major allies with chemical weapons. If you have the ability to do aerial bombardment then cluster weapons are at least as destructive as chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are military weapons of modest usefulness against soft targets, like defenseless villages and human-wave armies of zero-technology conscripts, and with many complications and problems.
They are very, very poor terrorist weapons. A large truck bomb is much more reliable and easily deployable, and that's the reason that it's the weapon of choice of actual terrorist organizations.
Chemical weapons and radiological weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction.
Professionally engineered biological (potentially) and fissile nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction with terrorist uses and deployability. There is no evidence Iraq had any significant capabilitiy after the Gulf War in these. To see the difference with nuclear weapons, witness Iran, which does have a fairly large scale dual-use infrastructure and weapons capability which is plainly obvious to everybody.
The city of Austin doesn't want them to, because its ugly and disruptive, which is why the city government is pushing on AT&T to allow Google to rent pole space from AT&T poles, just as Google is renting pole space from the city's owned utility poles.
AT&T want Federal regulatory policy and definitions to apply to an ordinance of the Austin municipal code, because that strange interpretation kneecaps a competitor.
There is also Federal law on this about pole access. A court of Appeals ruled that the law allows access "by" a telecom or cable provider even if the wires so being attached do not necessary carry only legacy telecom or cable data.
So presumably Google could provide telecommunication services somewhere in the USA so regulated (not even necessarily Austin) and then that qualifies them. Simplest solution for Google is to form a regulated subsidiary.
A share of equity is a fraction of something substantial in the real world.
This one is more like a commodity---but one intentionally designed to have no physical-world significance, but be very easily
Nobody has discussed the true reason why bitcoins aren't remotely useful as money. There's no bond market. That's what actually makes for useful money in the economic system and is the purpose of money---not just being a facilitation of bartering item X for item Y but for bartering time. The real-world modern uses of money all center around loans.
When you can get a mortgage in bitcoins then it has become money.
But it won't happen, because people can get income in bitcoins.
Another flaw. Now, the global limitation of bitcoins means that they will inevitably be deflationary. If the dynamics are deflationary then people prefer not to give away bitcoins---but the purpose of money is not to be hoarded but to be used. So the deflationary dynamics result in a contracting money supply which is a sign of economic collapse---and fortunately there is no significant economy attached to bitcoins, and there shouldn't ever be.
Solar power is generated precisely during peak hours, which are days and times with very high air-conditioning use. It saves utilities from buying expensive peak power or building peaking generators which are used only a small fraction of the time.
The solar installed households aren't being paid for that either.
Slashdot Mirror
No. The evidence has already mounted to plenty certain a while ago.
They just don't like the consequences, which is that their preferred ideology of selfish greed might result in the biggest catastrophe for human civilization since the start of civilization.
The end of the last Ice Age is commonly called "prehistoric".
History is generally considered to start with the beginning of organized civilization and literacy, which profoundly changes the structure and quantity of evidence available to the scholar.
By the way, the delta in average temperature from Ice Age to now was about 5 degrees K. With a business as usual greenhouse scenario, which is exactly what we're on (if not worse), it will be about 5 degrees K hotter. Doesn't seem like that much does it?
In the last Ice Age the glaciers were more than a mile thick in New York. That's 5 degrees. We're barreling towards a Heat Age as extreme in the other direction.
"Then why am I not under water by now, as where the so called 'solid' predictions of just 10 years ago said I would be?"
Citation needed.
"Why are only 1% of glaciers melting? and how is that significant? "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
"Why has the global temperature not risen in the last 10 years?"
Citation needed.
"Why hasn't new ice core data on how fast climate change has happened in the past been put into the climate models?"
They're working on it. You need validated physical and biological models to do this. (Of course the denialists will then disbelieve them because they're models). What the consequences of this fact is that natural feedbacks and feedforwards in the climate system possibly could make the climate response to greenhouse alterations much worse and more rapid than predicted now.
A perfect example of Dunning-Kruger at play.
The "hockey stick" was from actual data! D'oh!
Temperatures have risen, and the changes in atmospheric radiative properties have been observed and confirmed for ever.
There was a major prediction about global warming in a Nature article in 1980. The understanding then was substantially less mature and there was no clear-cut observed signal in the data at that time (as we know now, fossil fuel soot was temporarily counteracting increased greenhouse forcing). Since then, observed data have turned out the way that it was predicted then, and the understanding of the fundamental physics then is the same as now.
The predictions are not groundless, and the models aren't wrong.
The hypotheses HAVE been reinforced and confirmed by observable facts, over and over and and over and over and over.
No, anybody who disagrees or is skeptical is encouraged to submit their data and reasoning and assumption and physics.
And others will also be skeptical of those as well and examine them.
This "issue" is not an issue any more than the question in cardiology of whether blood circulation arises from the heart or the gall bladder.
This comment is not (Score:5 Iinsightful) in the slightest, in fact it's aggressively ignorant, and snarky about it no less.
No scientist denies that the physics of the solar insolation is critical---after all, without solar insolation the entire mechanism of the greenhouse effect wouldn't even matter very much!
The actual point is what actual changes in solar insolation and other physical mechanisms have occurred over recent times with reliable climate records. Changes in the Sun have been very small, and do not explain observed climate changes, as opposed to other changes such as those from human activities which do explain observed data. This means we should use models of physics which include them for predicting the future and governing human behavior.
Plenty of mainstream climate predictions have come true already. The true disbelievers are gonna disbelieve, because they don't like the consequences of the inconvenient truth.
Insolation is obviously the most important basic physics driver of climate, as without a Sun, the Earth would be slightly warmer than the 3K equilibrium with cosmic background radiation. But so what?
The point is that *changes* in solar input over the last 100 years have not been important in causing *changes* in climate.
The evidence for greenhouse gas forcing comes from the physics of the atmosphere and extensive direct measurements of infrared properties of it from ground, aircraft, balloons and spacecraft.
This is by far the most certain part.
The signal from AGW has not been difficult to detect at all. That's the point of the article.
The Peace Price was not one of the ones founded by Nobel. The Peace and Economics prizes are "Nobel Memorial" but not Nobel Prizes.
Of course the exposure as mentioned by many other posters is set for bright conditions. But even if the exposure had been changed, you would not perceive city illumination and shown in the "earth maps".
The photographs/maps showing the city lights have been heavily processed and derived from many raw orbital photographs.
In the natural state it is very difficult to make out artificial lighting even if dark adjusted.
Supersymmetry solves an enormous number of problems in particle physics, except for experimental facts.
They like to hire Mormons from wealthy families.
"Undermining the US economy is really the LAST thing the US Businessmen would want to do. It makes no sense from a business perspective."
Are there any public whistleblowers from the Chinese or Russian intelligence services?
Seems that the last one had some polonium with his final tea.
I don't think going rogue is an option.
"It makes absolutely no sense. Not only does China have nothing to gain by disrupting our economy that way, they have a lot to lose. It would also be considered an act of war, and one that would be sure to align pretty much the whole planet against them."
No it wouldn't. People would probably blame the Jews and enjoy the USA's hurt.
Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction unless accompanied by an airforce or major artillery with custom-designed and manufactured (i.e. NOT 'improvised') technical capabilities. There needs to be significant infrastructure and training.
There is exactly zero chance that Saddam could conduct an aerial bombardement of the US or major allies with chemical weapons. If you have the ability to do aerial bombardment then cluster weapons are at least as destructive as chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are military weapons of modest usefulness against soft targets, like defenseless villages and human-wave armies of zero-technology conscripts, and with many complications and problems.
They are very, very poor terrorist weapons. A large truck bomb is much more reliable and easily deployable, and that's the reason that it's the weapon of choice of actual terrorist organizations.
Chemical weapons and radiological weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction.
Professionally engineered biological (potentially) and fissile nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction with terrorist uses and deployability. There is no evidence Iraq had any significant capabilitiy after the Gulf War in these. To see the difference with nuclear weapons, witness Iran, which does have a fairly large scale dual-use infrastructure and weapons capability which is plainly obvious to everybody.
Like the USSR on steroids? More like the USSR on adulterated PCP.
The USSR sort of worked and had excellent physical science.
The city of Austin doesn't want them to, because its ugly and disruptive, which is why the city government is pushing on AT&T to allow Google to rent pole space from AT&T poles, just as Google is renting pole space from the city's owned utility poles.
AT&T want Federal regulatory policy and definitions to apply to an ordinance of the Austin municipal code, because that strange interpretation kneecaps a competitor.
There is also Federal law on this about pole access. A court of Appeals ruled that the law allows access "by" a telecom or cable provider even if the wires so being attached do not necessary carry only legacy telecom or cable data.
So presumably Google could provide telecommunication services somewhere in the USA so regulated (not even necessarily Austin) and then that qualifies them. Simplest solution for Google is to form a regulated subsidiary.
When you pay, you are paying for developers to STFU about their prima ballerina complex and get to work.
Imagine directing a film where every actor and stagehand is an over-educated volunteer trying to pad their resume.
People who get paid have grown up.
A share of equity is a fraction of something substantial in the real world.
This one is more like a commodity---but one intentionally designed to have no physical-world significance, but be very easily
Nobody has discussed the true reason why bitcoins aren't remotely useful as money. There's no bond market. That's what actually makes for useful money in the economic system and is the purpose of money---not just being a facilitation of bartering item X for item Y but for bartering time. The real-world modern uses of money all center around loans.
When you can get a mortgage in bitcoins then it has become money.
But it won't happen, because people can get income in bitcoins.
Another flaw. Now, the global limitation of bitcoins means that they will inevitably be deflationary. If the dynamics are deflationary then people prefer not to give away bitcoins---but the purpose of money is not to be hoarded but to be used. So the deflationary dynamics result in a contracting money supply which is a sign of economic collapse---and fortunately there is no significant economy attached to bitcoins, and there shouldn't ever be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala
Bitcoins are the geek form of hawala.
There's little doubt this is intentional.
The primary 'hackers' that the NSA is worried about is Congressional oversight and the Government Accountability Office, or any kind of auditors.
Inability to find relevant information is precisely the goal.
Solar power is generated precisely during peak hours, which are days and times with very high air-conditioning use. It saves utilities from buying expensive peak power or building peaking generators which are used only a small fraction of the time.
The solar installed households aren't being paid for that either.
Local and out of state Republicans are supporting some of the utilities' efforts to increase costs and fees on solar users.