2109 posts • joined 14 Apr 2011
Re: 1980-2010 was warmer than 1970-2000
If I recall correctly a doubling of CO2 is supposed to cause an imbalance of 3.7wm-2, which would be equivalent to about a 1.5% increase in solar output.
Re: The fat lady has sung
the tilt peaked about 8,000 years ago and has since been reversing, having a cooling effect.
Re: The fat lady has sung
"Unfortunately, the 'tropical tropospheric hotspot' that should appear with this hypothesis has not appeared "
The tropical tropospheric hotspot is not specific to greenhouse warming. It's expected to appear under any cause of warming. It's an expected side effect of warming itself.
"yet the actual global temperatures have remained statistically unchanged for more than 17 years"
To falsify the expectation of warming since 1998 we need to demonstrate that there's been no warming. Can we say there's been no warming since 1998? No. Statistically speaking a positive trend since 1998 cannot be ruled out.
Re: The fat lady has sung
"Can you explain how the Earth warmed into the Holocene interglacial in that case"
I believe the scientific explanation for that is the Earth's tilt meant the northern hemisphere was angled more towards the Sun.
Re: 1980-2010 was warmer than 1970-2000 @ NomNomNom
....If you want to demonstrate that the Earth has warmed...
Re: 1980-2010 was warmer than 1970-2000 @ SumDood
"that comparing the average temperatures of the periods 1970-2000 and 1980-2010 gives an essentially meaningless result"
It shows the world has warmed. 1990-2020 likely be even warmer, and 2000-2030, and so on.
Re: The fat lady has sung
"and the CO2 graph looks like it had more in the ice from 320Kya ago than today as well"
That graph doesn't go up to today. In the last 100 years CO2 concentration has risen to 400ppm. Check that against the y-axis (edit: wikipedia has it graphed http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png)
"~450Mya we were in a cold slump with >4000ppmv CO2, and again from 300Mya to today"
450Mya the Sun was much fainter.
Re: Macro versus micro
If you want to go on longer timescales then those show warming too
1980-2010 was warmer than 1970-2000
Re: And yet, temperatures..
looks like they've found it
It's funny how a million-to-one asteroid strike is a huge danger but the same people will write off climate change as a non-issue.
Can any of these geniuses prove that climate change has less than one chance in a million of causing a disaster? Of course not.
So that's where MH370 went
Re: missing the point
"This "study" apparently makes no distinction about that."
That was my first thought too. If they don't even control for the most chemically offensive of all foods - meat and dairy - then what's the point?
Re: just a thought...
"Surely Marriage is a religious institution, grounded in the faith of your choice"
Then as my religion I choose to believe gays can marry.
"No, they wanted to be able to adopt children...And why do they want these children? I have been asking myself that. Is it to indoctrinate them into being gay?"
I don't know. If we are going to interfere though lets ask why do you want to have children? Is it to raise them in the ways of the bigot?
Re: It's a shame
"You can't take away rights someone doesn't have in the first place."
That's interesting, so are you saying that if gays could already marry you wouldn't agree with banning it? Or are you just kind of nitpicking?
Re: Argument vs oppression, and the Pyrrhic victory.
"that the right to free speech is being unfairly removed"
He was and still is free to say anything. His right to free speech has not been taken way. But what he never had was a right to speech without consequence. People are free to take action - within the law - in legitimate protest, through boycotts, against anyone who says something they don't like.
"Eich did not make a massive donation to the Klan, he made a small donation in a legal and democratic process"
To a cause that sought to suppress the rights of others. But yes that's legal and democratic. But so too is a protest response.
"He was well within his legal rights to do so, it was not an illegal action nor a hate crime"
Neither was boycotting his company and getting him fired from his job.
You can say is it was mean of those protesters to get him fired, which is what I think has everyone riled up. Because as an individual we empathize with him for being forced out his job by a nameless mob of protesters. So by all means argue it was mean to do this, but not that it was a violation of his rights.
"Would it not have been a bigger victory to have someone in Eich's position partake in a calm and open public discussion, to have exposed the actual reasons for his donation and his underlying beliefs, and to have won the argument by virtue of intelligence? Or is it just a lot easier and more fun to reach for the hate hammer?"
You could similarly wonder why did Eich donate to a group that seeks to prevent gays from marrying through campaigning? Would it not have been better for him to "partake in a calm and open public discussion and to have won the argument by virtue of intelligence"?
"The most disturbing thing is that you obviously fail to see the dismal immorality of what you just wrote."
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I am saying boycott and protest should be allowed whatever the cause.
However I will have personal views as to whether that cause is right or wrong which will determine whether I support or oppose it, but opposing it wouldn't mean preventing them protesting.
Re: I have lost a little respect for the LGBT community
"The man gave a donation to a political cause he believed in - that's how society is supposed to work"
Sure, he's allowed to donate to a cause which seeks to hound people out of their right to marry. And likewise his opponents are allowed to hound him out of a job.
"I'm pretty sure it'd contain words like, "Bigotry", "Hate", "Discrimination" etc"
Yes it would.
Boycotting and campaigning are legitimate methods of protest to enact change. Donating to a campaign is legitimate too. These are simply methods.
However it matters a great deal what is being campaigned for.
As far as I see it a boycott of someone who wants to stamp out the rights of others is morally wrong and I will attack it, perhaps using words like "Bigotry", "Hate", "Discrimination" etc.
Whereas a boycott of someone who wants to defend the rights of others is morally right and I will support it.
There's no contradiction there.
Re: Now boycott Islam
By all means go after those who kill, flog, mutilate, or imprison a person, but saying "boycott islam" is wrong as it is stereotyping a minority in your country. At worse your comment could be seen as an attempt to defend the stamping on the rights of one minority by playing them off against another minority.
Also if someone wants to defend the rights of a minority, such as the right of gays to marriage, that should be encouraged. Please don't try turning it into a bad thing by accusing them of not defending other minority rights elsewhere. There's no requirement that individuals must prioritize what they work for, it's possible for an individual to focus on specific issues even if bigger picture there are more pressing subjects. This is true of all parts of life. Also if you must argue priorities, then rather than criticizing rights campaigners for not prioritizing correctly, wouldn't it be more productive for you to criticize those who stamp on rights instead?
so much gaycism
well said bolccg
Re: It's a shame
Lets get this straight.
He can promote and donate to a cause that conspires to take away the rights of others, but those others are not allowed to complain about this or take any retaliatory action.
Because working for Mozilla is the greatest human right of all.
The legalization movement has the moral high ground on the whole freedom/constitution/rights issue.
That's why those in opposition to legalization are trying so hard to take that ground out by accusing supporters of being just as intolerant as them.
It's probably also as much an attempt to justify their position to themselves. Blind bigotry doesn't go down well, but if you can convince yourself that your view is no more intolerant than the alternative you can probably live with that.
Here's a hypothetical
1) A CEO makes a racist comment in public.
2) A website decides to organize a boycott of that CEO's product.
What is your response?
a) Write a comment agreeing that the CEO is wrong, and that the website is entitled to boycott and it might do some good.
b) Desperately conjure up an argument to attack the website (why?), write that the website are hypocrites because they (probably!) run their website on computers made in China.
Re: Ender's Game
There are a bunch of good reasons to legalize gay marriage. There's rights and fairness of course, but even the act of riling up certain folk by trying to get it through is beneficial. It's like opening the windows of a stuffy house to let some fresh air in.
Ultimately the good reasons for legalizing it outweigh the non-reasons for not legalizing it.
"Last I checked having a political opinion was protected under the United States constitution; these Social Justice Warriors TM aren't interested in anything as mundane as facts or sensible debate though."
Opinions are protected. But people are also free to organize boycott's of a product for whatever reason. hardly a violation of the constitution!
If a CEO declares a certain race is inferior to another race, expect to see the same thing - people organizing boycotts of that CEO's product..
Re: Product != CEO
"There really is a double standard here whereby sites like OKCupid are at liberty to do this, yet if I wrote a browser which detected people visiting gay or lesbian sites and popped up a notice saying "Hey why don't you give being straight a go tonight instead" then the outcry would ring around the media and world and I would be labelled homophobic, etc."
Imagine if some CEO said it was their opinion that people of different races should not be allowed to marry. And paid towards a campaign to prevent it.
And in response some website decided to advertise a boycott of that CEO's product.
Now really you would say that's a double standard?
"If I was an investor in Facebook I'd want a more convincing justification for the purchase than that offered so far"
That's why you aren't an investor in Facebook.
By the time VR goes mainstream for Doctors surgeries and Tennis Courts, the world will be a different place. Whatever the investment plan Facebook had for VR it probably won't end up making sense. Probably we'll find that Facebook owns one of three major VR headset manufactures in the future. But the popular VR software that runs on those headsets is created by 3rd party software companies. So Facebook doesn't have access to the data.
Oops. Good luck getting that $2bn back from selling headsets.
I doubt Carmack will stand for that
Re: Zuckerborg's suggestions
"But 2bn??? FFS, he could have developed the whole thing from scratch to maturity for less than 10 mio"
Perhaps he realizes how hated facebook is. He could set up a competitor to OR but everyone would choose OR over facebook. So taking out OR makes sense (of course now everyone just doesn't like OR)
What I want to know is how that negotiation went. Did he just offer $2bn? Or did he have to work up to that? Did the OR people really turn down $1bn?
Re: The point
There are plenty of potential markets for VR that would eclipse gaming. But imanidiot's valid point is that those markets will be very hard to break into, decades. Gaming can be broken in tomorrow.
""After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences," he said. "Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face - just by putting on goggles in your home.""
Getting it to work in real-life settings - including getting "doctors" and "tennis courts" to install it and then finding a segment of the public who will accept, pay for it and use it - that is decades off. And that's not simply because of the technology. It's the social inertia.
The first step is getting it to work with games, hard. With completely virtual worlds that you control, leveraging all those PC gamers out there who are able and willing to shell out on such a step change of kit for gaming.
If Oculus does not focus primarily on gaming now, but messes about on tennis courts, someone else who does focus solely on games will be the future of VR.
"Zuckerberg bought it for 2bn US Dollars and you didn't. The question is what does he plan on doing with it?"
On the odds alone the kind of person who would buy it for 2bn is not going to be the kind of person who is going to be good at directing it. Then there's...WTF does Zuckerberg know about VR?
The kind of people who *would* be good running it were precisely the kind of people who owned it before, you know the ones who made VR their living and understood it inside out. Rather than someone who has none of that but has a special interest in an unrelated area (facebook).
"I get the feeling that if I were as talented, and as rich as 'ol Zuck. I'd probably tire of that One Trick Pony too..."
Sure but the immaturity of buying Oculus for $2bn...For $2bn he could have developed his own VR product more closely aligned to Facebook.
"So lets reserve our hate for now and see how this turns out first. If anything I see this as a good thing for the Oculus Rift."
I disagree, there are so many bad potentials that come of this that weren't open before. The chance of this being a good thing for OR is low. Chances are OR is about to veer in a direction that is nothing like where it was heading before.
Look at Notch fleeing Oculus as the tip of a very big iceberg being pushed out the way.
"In as far as Zuckerberg has perhaps more motivation to get this junk out the Door ASAP....
Not the feeling I ever had with the People who were in charge of it before? I mean how long has the OR been in the pipeline for now?"
I don't see why there would be motivation to get it out the door. If anything the huge $2 billion tag attached implies there's even more time=money so no rush to get it out. Also there's all that facebook integration to do...
I was going to get a development headset and get into it, but not now. I am not even going to buy it retail to play games now.
God I can't think of a better way to completely sink OR than have Facebook buy it. I bet many PC gamers hate facebook even more than me.
zuckerberg seems to be just buying up toys childishly. drones? vr headsets? wtf does any of it have to do with facebooks business model? it's an attempt to emulate google IMO, and a bid to make facebook more interesting than the boring account/messaging site that it is.
I want to get into "drones" and "virtual reality" and ....$2 billion is money down the pan. Facebook will never make that back from this investment. Where the F are they getting this money? when is this bubble going to finally burst.
Re: Gay rage, because of what somebody believes?
"I don't support gay marriage. Why? Because the Bible calls homosexuality a sin"
"I'm just tired of certain people being given superior *rights* because they have a seemingly popular worldly belief and others being put down because they hold a (supposed) minority position."
"so, if I happen to be A DICK, it is OK for me to be discriminated against and prevented from taking up a role."
Why did Rosa Parks only boycott buses?
The more interesting question is why someone would decide a question like that was important.
Re: Shakes Head
"you can be just as prejudiced against someone who has a different opinion to you"
sure we should never speak out against racists because then we'd be just just as prejudiced as them
give me a break/
Because Google is basically a front for the NSA
Nothing killed the dinosaurs because dinosaurs are not real. Scientists should not be asking what killed the dinosaurs but "why dinosaurs?"
There is no such creature as a dinosaur, so why dinosaurs? Why doesn't the media talk about other mythical creatures - dragons, emus or unicorns perhaps.
Call me cynical but there is an election coming up, plus a referendum on Scottish independence. It's going to be dinosaurs-dinosaurs-dinosaurs over the next 24 month. Blanket coverage all over the news. They are even bringing out a new Jurassic Park movie in 2015.
Re: Limit climate change?
"Here's a black/white statement for you: models either predict something with good enough precision, or they don't."
If a model is 60% "good" why not take it as 60% good? Why must you all insist at some arbitrary threshold that converts all models below to zero and all above to one?
Re: Ergo, a computer model cannot be used to support a hypothesis.
"model prediction =/= data"
"in real science this invalidates the hypothesis."
No it doesn't. The scant evidence of gradual transitions in the fossil record didn't invalidate evolution did it.
The world has warmed since the 80s, and there's one very good explanation for that.
Re: Limit climate change?
You continue to paint everything as black/white:
-Models either fail or are correct.
-Knowledge is either complete or zero.
-Answers are either known or unknown.
Re: Limit climate change?
"We know we dont have enough knowledge to draw a conclusion when the theory and the fact do not match up."
Just because they don't match up completely doesn't mean they don't match up at all.
There's a pattern here isn't there.
"without a full knowledge and understand there is no information about how best to deal with the problem"
Sure there is. If greenhouse gas emissions stop rising there is no possible impact.
There's only a possible problem caused by GHG emissions if they continue.
Re: Limit climate change?
"The fact that we are still seeing articles in major peer-reviewed journals like Nature that reveal previously unknown facts about how the Earth's complex climate actually works is sufficient proof that we do not have all the data needed to create wholly accurate predictive climate models."
Would you also argue that because we are finding new fossils all the time therefore no conclusions can be drawn from the fossil record?
Just because knowledge is incomplete doesn't mean you have zero knowledge.
Re: Record profits
"Considering that the Thames is now one of the cleanest city rivers in the world and has cormorants and grebes swimming on it, and that London no longer has smog, it's difficult to see what point you're making."
The point is that came about through environmentalist and socialist policies.
If we just let maximizing short-term profit rule then the Thames would be caked in toxins and effluent to this day with the air thick with smog. That's because the people making the profit would make less profit if they ever had to pay the cost of cleaning up after themselves.
Regulation comes first. That prevents the deterioration of the world. Then industry - constrained by the regulation - finds new ways to make profits.
Re: Study A, then comment on B?
"(except the scientist that got fired for proving the ocean isn't rising)."
Uh it is. You've made this absurd claim that sea level isn't rising several times on this thread.
Sea level IS rising.