Climate models as far back as the 1970s have predicted the temperature changes in the time from then to now -- those are not predictions that are coming from hindsight, but rather predictions where their effects were observed over the last 50 years.
The current consensus on the impact of climate is NOT "something that might not happen".
Climate change is happening right now, with effects that are observable as trends across the globe. Even the most optimistic model is predicting widespread catastrophe.
Climate is long term patterns. Weather is what is happening at a specific time. If the distinction wasn't made then someone could argue that a cold winter day disproves warming.
It is not possible if there aren't valid temperature measurements available for all points throughout the measured period of time, so that many temperatures are "interpolated", estimated etc.
Except that we do have a massive number of recorded temperatures across a massive number of locations in the last 100 years. Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data.
The measurements are real, and there is an established history of the models being generally correct (if not in specific details) by now. Climate study is not the new science you seem to think it is.
> Climate models, some dating back to the 1970s, have correctly predicted global temperature changes in the 50 years since based on this data.
Can you point me to one such model? One that actually predicted temperatures correctly back in the 1970s and not after various recent "adaptations" like "corrected" emission data?
> The measurements are real
Yes, measurements are real. Interpolations, resulting "global" temperatures and predictions aren't.
I don't think this is correct. The timing attacks here all require extremely high resolution timers, and network + I/O latency would obscure the variance entirely.
People are able to crack poor password comparison implementations over a jittery, latency heavy network. It’s possible to get almost arbitrarily high resolution when doing timing side channel attacks, you’ll just need many more samples.
Take another look at the table - the values are denominated in millions of dollars, and that second symbol is a comma, not a period, so it's 19 million million.
Omnicom: $15B revenue annually, $17B market cap
WPP: $18B revenue, $23B market cap
Google: $110B revenue, $750B market cap
Seems like a good argument that being tech-forward provides a multiplier on value versus doing the same old thing, if you believe that these are all just advertising companies.
Yes because all those apps exist... to funnel people towards Google's extensive advertising network, so the money shows up as adbiz revenue instead of with products.
If you are unfamiliar with climate sensitivity, this is a good place to start: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm