1veedo

Climate science works completely different than you think it does. I've explained the very basics a couple times now on the specific issue of temperature change (more energy=higher temperatures, less energy=lower temperatures; it's fairly intuitive) but you keep thinking the climate works in a completely different way than it does. Your version of how the climate behaves is not reflective of how it actually behave in reality as scientists know it does. You are right that the sun had a much larger effect during this time and that CO2 had less of an effect, and this is obvious from the graphs, but you're makign some very elementary mystakes here. For one both the sun and CO2 lag their effects on temperature. When analyzing sunspots we know from historical data which you can actually see graphed that more sunspots means higher temperatures around 10 years in the future. CO2 lags a few years as well and to make things more complicated it also cumulates in the atmosphere (eg current warming is "caused" by all the CO2 released over the period ~1900 to today, depending on if you accept CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 200years, 50years, or somewhere in between -- 1800~1950, which is something I think scientists are still trying to figure out). So you cant even look at sunspots, CO2 levels, and temperature linearly, which is exactly what you're trying to do! So basically you distrust science and this is why you're posting at scienceforums.net. You do realize that the data you are looking at on wikipedia has actually gone through "complex calculations?" You cant represent everything with just the raw data. Global temperatures are a good example of this. Although it seems pretty strait froward even ground temperature readings have to be averaged out and weighed specifically for proximity with other stations, and the ones located in cities have to knock off a few degrees. How satellites know the temperature is even more complex: http://scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27104 And your solar cycles are smoothed, probably 11 years (not necessarily the most "complex" of calculations), so even the most basic data (count the number of spots on the sun, kiddies!) has gone through some calculations before being graphed. And how do we know sunspots correlate with solar irradaice? A bit of complex calculations again, represented here,

"what evidence is there that we are not causing global warming?" Argument from ignorance, someguy.

They do refelct change in the influence of various factors driving global warming. However the conclusion that the sun was the primary influence (~greater than 75%) is still erroneous. You're just beating around the bush here. Your last two or three posts, actually, have been red herrings. Example: "greenhouse gas increase in the early part of the 20th Century was minor compared to what we saw a few decades later" This is true but it does not follow that greenhouse gases were insignificant in the early part of the 20th century because of it. It's just a fact that I brought up a long time ago. Instead of beating around the bush and tip toeing around the issue at hand why don't you address the basic fact that cumulative solar forcing between 1900 and 1950 was ~.35W/m^2, equivalent to about 40% of the total energy required for degrees C under the curve, integral from 1900 to 1950 of T(year). You are very close to the truth, SkepticLance, but being close doesn't quite cut it.

Distilled means there's nothing in the water. It doesn't even conduct electricity.

Isn't this 4K figure from background radiation? Eg 4k is the average temperature of the universe ergo space is 4k. Of course I'm sure this is a valid assumption. Just curious if I'm correct here. Space I think would be fairly hot if you're in direct sunlight. Out towards Pluto though (where the sun isn't much bigger than any other star) it would be extremely cold. But space itself is cold even close to the sun because, as you pointed out, there are few atoms. It would only be you that would be hot because you'd be the one absorbing all the heat while the space around you would be about 4k.

Try a proxy.

I would assume the highest layer of the atmosphere but I could be wrong.

You mean the fact that they paid attention in economics class and actually understood the material? The only downside of a capitalist economy is the threat of a monopoly*. This is a very elementary concept -- when you have a monopoly there are no longer other choices so if you, for example, want an operating system you have no choice but to buy inferior goods at higher cost. This is why there are laws against monopolies -- pure laze-fair capitalist economics do not work because companies merge and outcompete each other until there's only one or two companies in a market. Mind you oligopolies (eg fast food) are ok, but not monopolies. And the proof is right here with Microsoft. Windows is a very low quality product and yet you pay way too much to use it. And look at the RIAA -- they're not technically a monopoly in the music industry but as far as "popular" artists are concerned they most certainly are a monopoly. I'm not against Microsoft by any means but most of the criticism that they receive is deserved. You just have to remember that any other company put in Microsoft's position would be doing the same thing. *Well that and inefficiency but we don't need to go that deep. Inefficiency arises because you, as the consumer, have choices. As far as I'm aware of other economic systems, for different reasons, are even more so inefficient.

There's a difference between authority and evidence. What I have is evidence to back up my claim. What evidence, aka published peer-review, do you have to support your claim? You have to understand that the climate is much more complicated than what you're making it out to be. There isn't always one dominant factor at work. Eg first solar then aerosols (mid-century cooling) then CO2 (past 30 years). Climate scientists model temperature based on the amount of energy coming into and out of the planet. This energy is measured in radiative forcing or W/m^2. You can break down what factors are increasing the total energy of the planet and what factors are decreasing the total energy -- a hotter sun or more CO2 increase the amount of energy coming into the Earth and sulfur decreases this. Whenever you add these factors together and get the total energy influx you can then model ("predict") what the temperature is going to do. Eg the positive forcing from CO2 is present throughout the entire century not just the latter half and you can calculate the total temperature increase just from CO2 even during periods of cooling (eg the CO2 is stopping temperatures from dropping as far as is the case of mid-century cooling) In the case of early-century warming (1900 to 1950) we have the solar contribution at .35 W/m^2 and, when calculating the energy required to raise the Earth's temperature during this period, Lean et al found that this .35 represented 40% of the net warming effect (ie we're not counting any negative forcing here, just the positive forcing that is required to outweigh the negative and cause a temperature increase equal to the total area under the temperature curve from 1900 to 1950).

I don't even think Linus controls that. He gave up that power when he switched to GNU. Instead he's part of a committee made up of the main kernel coders. Most of them meet every year at a Linux Kernel Developers Summit. If you submit code to the kernel, your .diff patch is always going to be available for anyone who wants to use it. I'm not sure how it becomes an official part of the kernel though -- I guess if they need it then it gets added. Linus himself doesn't self-inspect everything that goes into the kernel though. It's erroneous to assume that because it's controlled, which I'm sure it is, that it's no longer open source or that you would have a hard time getting your code included, which is irrelevant. If you write good code then it'll be included. If you send in poorly written code that isn't useful then, amazing, it wont. The Linux kernel has received code from thousands of people around the world. Saying that the kernel is "controlled" really means you don't know much about how it's set up on a technical level. There are many projects that are compiled with the kernel that are not part of the vanilla version of the kernel. These include squashfs, unionfs, and proprietary nvidia drivers for example. Squashfs I think has been added by default recently but unionfs still remains separate. If you want unionfs then you can just download the source and build it yourself -- the source is all right there for you to do whatever you want with it. Most distros of Linux use their own modified version of the kernel -- eg gentoo and ubuntu, and they don't have to ask Linus if they can do this. The kernel is not one big centralize hunk of code that everyone works on. Instead there are different parts of the kernel that are developed individually of each other (eg the squashfs developers work separate from network coders). So if you wanted to submit modifications for squashfs you would be submitting your patches to squashfs, not "the Linux kernel."

Yes, considering this is exactly what I was talking about there should be no disconnect here. Linus Torvalds just holds the copyright for the name "Linux" (and even now I think the copyright is held by GNU or the FSF). So if you're talking about Linux it just insures you really mean Linux as in the OS and not something else. Again though, nobody actually "owns" Linux (the kernel). It's published under GNU and is open for everyone to inspect and modify.

Lol your program makes no sense. I do see the add/subl $48 lines for conversion which is what I was trying to do (0x30 = 48 in decimal -- ascii 1 is 0x30). I made a temporary hack sense echo $? prints the exit status -- just make the exit status the answer. -8(%ebp) was just 0 though . But that's ok cause I wrote a new program. I've also figured out how stack works through trial and error. pop 1 -- num args pop 2 -- program name for some odd reason??? It's counted as an argument -- if no arguments are passed then pop the first time returns 1, not 0. pop 3 -- first argument pop 4 -- second argument etc My program couldn't do anything above 5 (error codes don't go up to 6!) nor could it take input, although I could input indirectly from the top stack (eg num of arguments if I pass 2 arguments then it calculates 3!). But thanks to your code I added the input and output functions, leaving everything else alone. .section .data answerText: .ascii "The answer = " answerTextLen: .byte 13 .section .bss .comm input 25 .comm answer 25 .text .global _start .global multiply _start: /* Read in */ movl $0,%ebx movl $input,%ecx movl $25,%edx movl $3,%eax int $0x80 /* Length comes back on eax */ /* Convert to Integer - %eax = accum, %ecx = input+length, %ebx = input, %edx = digit */ movl $input, %ebx movl %ebx, %ecx addl %eax, %ecx /* Move length into ecx */ subl $2, %ecx movl $0, %eax cl : cmp %ebx, %ecx jb cend /* Finished reading input? */ movl $10, %edx mul %edx movb (%ebx), %dl subl $48, %edx addl %edx, %eax addl $1, %ebx jmp cl cend : pushl %eax /* Write (syscall 4) answerText to stdout (fd 1) */ movl $1,%ebx movl $answerText,%ecx movl $0, %edx movb (answerTextLen),%dl movl $4,%eax int $0x80 call multiply movl $10, %ebx movl $answer, %ecx pushl %eax addl $25, %ecx /* Add New Line */ subl $1, %ecx movb $10, (%ecx) cdq loop : idiv %ebx /* eax = eax / ebx ; edx = eax % ebx */ addl $48, %edx subl $1, %ecx movb %dl, (%ecx) movl $0, %edx cmpl %eax, %edx jb loop /* Print Result */ movl $answer,%edx addl $25, %edx subl %ecx, %edx movl $1,%ebx movl $4,%eax int $0x80 movl $0, %ebx movl $1, %eax int $0x80 .type multiply,@function multiply: #does up to 12 factorial pushl %ebp #place holder so %eax is always stored 8(%esp) movl %esp, %ebp movl 8(%ebp), %eax cmpl $1, %eax je done decl %eax pushl %eax call multiply movl 8(%ebp), %ebx imull %ebx, %eax done: movl %ebp, %esp popl %ebp ret Btw can java do inline assembly like C++? I'm about to make an entry into Atheist's contest with this . Just stick it in Math.java right?

Linux is published under the GNU. Nobody "controls" Linux. The fact that Microsoft is a company? Yeah, of course. We're talking about economics 101 here. I said this way back in post #9 and again in post #17. None of this is very complicated; you were just originally trying to take a low blow to "Linux fanboys" and overlooked a very obvious aspect of economics. You said, 'How is Microsoft (presumably you mean "unfairly") "taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly" today?' More to the point, the fundamental issue, "Is Microsoft (unfairly) taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly." At this point you can adlib Microsoft for any other company which holds a monopoly (eg the RIAA is a monopoly?) and the answer will always be yes. We're not talking specifically Microsoft here but just basic economic theory that your average highschool graduate should know. Of course in economics nothing is ever unfair so we can't say Microsoft is being "unfair" in a literal sense. Any other company put in Microsoft's place would be doing the same thing. In a practical sense though it appears to be unfair, er, it appears we should have laws in place preventing this, but anything following this sort of logic is subjective.

Because the data indicates CO2 is responsible for ~half of the temperature increase during the first half of the century. I'm only challenging you because published research shows something different than what you are trying to say. It's not really that important except to illustrate that all and all the total temperature increase for the 20th century was largely caused by greenhouse gases -- not the first half solar and the second half greenhouse gases. If it weren't for greenhouse gases, 1) There would only be half the warming between 1900 and 1950 2) The cooling after 1958 would have been much greater 3) The recent warming would be non-existent Therefore, the Earth would be much cooler today than it actually is.

Ok well this thread was meant to be a joke from Atheist's factorial thread (homework help!) but I just recently started trying to learn assembly, 32bit [for now] on Linux (gcc/gas = At&t style, though this is arbitrary because if there's anything I've learned so far it's how to convert between intel and At&t). There really aren't very many quality articles online for assembly, except introductory and hello world tutorials. I'd rather have a list of commands and what they do. I assume you should pick up a book or something which I plan to do next time I'm out but for now I've been learning by compiling dummy programs in C++ to see what the commands do. So I have this program in C++ int main() { int number = 11; int xx = 0; int answer = 1; for(xx = number; xx > 1; xx -= 1) { answer *= xx; } } And in assembly it looks like this .file "factorial.cpp" .text .align 2 .globl main .type main, @function main: .LFB2: leal 4(%esp), %ecx .LCFI0: andl $-16, %esp pushl -4(%ecx) .LCFI1: pushl %ebp .LCFI2: movl %esp, %ebp .LCFI3: pushl %ecx .LCFI4: subl $16, %esp .LCFI5: movl $11, -16(%ebp) movl $0, -12(%ebp) movl $1, -8(%ebp) movl -16(%ebp), %eax movl %eax, -12(%ebp) jmp .L2 .L3: movl -8(%ebp), %eax imull -12(%ebp), %eax movl %eax, -8(%ebp) subl $1, -12(%ebp) .L2: cmpl $1, -12(%ebp) jg .L3 movl $0, %eax addl $16, %esp popl %ecx popl %ebp leal -4(%ecx), %esp ret .LFE2: .size main, .-main .globl __gxx_personality_v0 .ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.1.2 (Ubuntu 4.1.2-0ubuntu4)" .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits But what I cant do from here is assemble it. I don't know why -- as and then ld but it says "ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 0000000008048074" and then "Segmentation fault (core dumped)." Presumably g++ didn't think it was necessary to give it _start and would have done something a little different then as/ld from here. But seeing as how I don't want all this compiled stuff -- just basic assembly, I've truncated it and added _start. .text .global _start _start: leal 4(%esp), %ecx andl $-16, %esp pushl -4(%ecx) pushl %ebp movl %esp, %ebp pushl %ecx subl $16, %esp movl $11, -16(%ebp) #11=factorial, for now. I'll figure out input latter movl $0, -12(%ebp) movl $1, -8(%ebp) movl -16(%ebp), %eax movl %eax, -12(%ebp) jmp .L2 .L3: movl -8(%ebp), %eax imull -12(%ebp), %eax movl %eax, -8(%ebp) subl $1, -12(%ebp) .L2: cmpl $1, -12(%ebp) jg .L3 movl $0, %eax addl $16, %esp popl %ecx popl %ebp leal -4(%ecx), %esp #here we need output eg # movl $???,%edx # somehow get message length # movl $ebp,%ecx # movl $1,%ebx # movl $4,%eax # int $0x80 #exit -- equivalent platform-specific exit message here, er [b]ret[/b] which for some reason segfaults, but this works fine. movl $0,%ebx movl $1,%eax int $0x80 No seg faults or anything. I'm assuming at this point the program works just fine, I just need to generate output. When I add printf into the C++ program the assembly gets incredibly more complicated so I'm hopping I can just follow the hello world template. I don't really get memory operands though. And pop from what I remember extracts the last byte of data in a variable and I don't understand why that's there, either, so this program isn't really making sense (though I see how the for loop got compiled). I'm about to try inline assembly -- copy + paste this in asm() and then call printf and see if it's working. --edit. I uncommented the output section and replaced ??? w/ 8 because that's how long 11! is. But on ld it says "factorial2.o: In function `_start': (.text+0x55): undefined reference to `ebp'" So I made it %ebp but here I just get no output at all. So I don't really know how to get 11! out of this. #here we need output eg movl $8,%edx # somehow get message length movl %ebp,%ecx movl $1,%ebx movl $4,%eax int $0x80 I probably need Linux-specific advice here but of more immediate (and cross-platform) concern is where 11! is actually stored! --Answered. Presumable it's in -8(%ebp). If you follow the algorithm it does one superfluous loop then starts multiplying. -12(%ebp) is XX and when it reaches one it doesn't go to L3 anymore. I don't know how the value is stored though -- the memory operands are negative!

Which brings us back to the first problem of you thinking you know better than all the thousands of scientists who have been researching this topic for years upon years. There's no way you can look at the same data from Lean and decide, "no, he's full of shit I have a better idea." No offense but you (nor me) probably don't even know the appropriate mathematics to use in order to deduce conclusions from this data. The scientists however have phds and do happen to know the proper mathematics to use. So I'll just leave you with the data set referenced/included in Lean et al's paper so you can do your own calculations, seeing as you are much more qualified than anyone else on the planet to be doing so. Maybe you should be a scientist yourself! Or would this be too arrogant? Which you can find in the study I posted. This line of reasoning is a straw man. @your correlation: You do realize that CO2 correlates just as well as solar irradiance during this period, I assume?

Ahem? At least by this post you've changed your argument from Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong, today, to although Microsoft is in the wrong, so are other companies, like Google. Here I would agree with you, assuming you're correct about google/apple of course. I think you just had the wrong attitude in the beginning -- "Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong because other companies do it to -- these damned Linux fanboys will blame Microsoft for anything but don't care about what Google's doing." The more correct statement is that both of them are actually "wrong," and this is exactly what I was saying way back in post #9 when you lost your temper.

Especially considering that this is what the scientists themselves came up with. Damned scientists and their "idiotic" ideas. You have proof of this I assume? The raw data is accessible online; I don't see a problem looking yourself at the data Lean used in his paper. If you find that, indeed, solar forcing does not reflect sunspot activity, then and only then, will your argument be valid. Otherwise you're just pulling at straws to tip toe your way around the topic at hand. Your argument, "I know 1veedo has published data that supports his position but he cant use this reference because..." isn't going to get you anywhere. Stop making excuses. In the end what this means is that you are ignoring my reference and pretending that it isn't there. This isn't being skeptical; this is burying your head in sand and denying the existence of anything that proves you wrong. Yes and over the entire period from 1900 to 1950 greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for roughly 50% of the total temperature increase. Nobody is saying that CO2 is the ONLY factor in the climate. Your argument amounts to a straw man in this regard, especially considering that I have made the concept of "about half" relatively clear in my posts. Correlation does not imply causation. Ever. This is a logical fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Higher levels of meletonin make your dreams more vivid and rememberable. Serotonin turns into meletonin when it gets late, triggered by both darkness and your internal clock (thus why they recommend going to bed and waking up at the same time every night). So it could be that your daily routines or something have altered thus effecting these hormones / you're just getting better sleep at night. I know when I was in school I never remembered dreams cause I got up so early and although I got 8 (sometimes 7) hours of sleep I never sleep well on that schedule. Then on weekends I'd sleep in and I'd always remember dreams. It just has to do with how you sleep I guess.

Correlation does not imply causation. Ever. You can make the exact same argument about CO2 during this period as well. What matters is that when you calculate the total energy influx from solar irradiance and greenhouse gases you find that the two are about equal in magnitude. I already showed you one study that indicates it was 40%. Other similar studies show pretty much the same thing. The sun obviously had a much stronger role during this period but that doesn't make it the primary mover by any comparable extent that greenhouse gases are currently driving temperatures up. Well you might be flattered to find out, if you read the past few posts, that you have not been misquoted.

Maybe the fact that it's a religion?

#2 is true. Most of your dreams you don't remember. Actually just about anything that happens 1-2 minutes before you go to sleep you cant remember because your brain isn't 'recording' anything so to speak. If you want to remember a dream you have in the middle of the night wake up for a couple minutes or something.

Calm down your temper. You get upset too easily. I'm not the one trying to "argue" here, I was just pointing out that microsoft is coercing Linux distros into "signing up with them." What exactly do you call this? Looks like they're still trying to pull their same old tricks, even today.