Slashdot Mirror

Link without paywall: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co... (paper is open access)

The Royal Metrological Society in the UK found that 1 deg of the increase was from urbanization, not CO2?

Ah, I see you don't understand the paper you referenced. The paper says that the temperature in urban areas has increased. But measurement of global temperatures does not rely on such figures from urban areas. In fact, as BEST showed, if you remove urban temperature figures and those areas that changed from rural to urban, the trend in temperatures is higher. The effect of urban areas on the figures is anyway pretty low as only a very small proportion of recording stations are in urban areas.

The Royal Metrological Society in the UK found that 1 deg of the increase was from urbanization, not CO2. Buildings/asphalt absorbing heat during the day and radiating back out during the evening, thereby increasing Tmin (and thus the average). Same effect here?

Or perhaps the increasing CO2 levels will result in an increasing plant bio mass which will convert the CO2 into O2

It has a little bit, but the terrestrial biosphere sequestration overall is probably negative. (That is a positive feedback).

Reality is not quite as simple as you describe.

Yes it is.

Minor processes are interesting but not significant.

Post the scientific study that proves it or GTFO.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

No, you just don't know anything about real mathematical statistics. Bias is a component of error and it is amplified by large sample sizes that are not selected according to a strict randomness or with a designed plan. Simply adding "more samples" does nothing to improve accuracy for inference and in fact reduces it unless sampling (a field in itself) is applied properly.

DontBeAMoran opined:

The style of music will impact everyone differently. The current mood of the person and the tasks to accomplish will also alter the impact of the music.

Simply going with "lyrics that can be understood, lyrics in another language and no lyrics at all" is an incredibly short-sighted choice of parameters for such a study.

Did you read the actual study, or just TFS's warmed-over rewrite of NewAtlas's almost-indistinguishable-from-the-original summary of the Lancaster University press release about it?

Because judging an experiment's design from a xerox of a xerox of a dumbed-down-in-the-first-place press release about it lends your critique something more than a little short of credibility.

Then again, this is Slashdot, so I'm going to go with Door # 2 ...

"Collectively these images are the first reported in nearly 100 years that confirm the existence of black leopard in Africa..."

So, it is the media getting carried away again with headlines.

I mean, why so old when other sources show that by 2007 mcintre et al was disputed as being flawed, AND in the itnerim time many more models confirmed the hockey stick shape ? Why indeed show only something from 15 years ago ? The reader may decide if this was intentional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Convenient to leave out Mann's biggest trick. His original hockey stick graph displayed to disparate datasets. His proxy reconstruction of old temperatures, and superimposed on that was the instrumental record. This created the shocking effect of the graph abruptly surging away after 1900. Everyone then made a big deal about that coinciding with CO2 emissions, but much less attention was directed to that also coinciding with the change in datasets...

You are correct that more recent studies have more or less recreated Mann's results. Many have improved on his work in a very important way by including graphs showing uncertainties more clearly. In those the noise dwarfs the signal, so again without the instrumental record, there is no sudden and abrupt 'hockey stick' shape within the proxy reconstruction. For that, you still need the subtle trick of adding instrumental data onto the end.

The newest review of the literature I can find right now(I'm being lazy) is in Reviews of GeoPhysics on AGUpub, "Challenges and perspectives for large-scale temperature
reconstructions of the past two millennia".

Here's some of their notes and conclusions making more or less the same observations as my summary:
"Regardless of the many seemingly contradicting results regarding, e.g., regularization methods, and regardless of other technical issues, underestimation of low-frequency variability is a serious concern and that reconstruction methods in particular have problems reconstructing temperatures that are outside the range of the calibration interval. The main reason seems to be a feature of direct regression and CPS methods which under general assumptions can be shown to be biased toward zero."

"We saw that the different reconstructions agree on the general form of the low-frequency variability but that they disagree on the amplitude; the centennial-scale amplitude (i.e., the temperature difference between the warm eleventh century and the cold seventeenth century),in particular, varies from 0.14 to 1.3C

Around page 25 they have this to say in comparing reconstructions to instrumental records:
"It is obvious that the noise is considerable and that the signal TTis not easily seen in P. In particular, for
c=0.40 and c=0.25 the trend in the twentieth century is practically lost in the noise. It is clearly not a simple
task to extract the signal from the noisy series—almost like making eggs from scrambled eggs—although
temporal or spatial averaging may reduce the noise."

In other tree ring reconstruction reviews(I can't find it right now but I've not spend much time either) the authors note that bad sensitivity to high temperatures (like the current period), is a known issue particular to tree rings and handling of that problem is a big and current research area.

So the overall summary being, there are a lot of unknowns, the hockey stick only 'works' if you are a bit dishonest on your graph, and when we say the current warming is unprecedented over the last millenia plus it is with a host of caveats and uncertainties that you need to read the full papers to see, and the uncertainties aren't nothing.

If you read the actual paper, you will see that this process delivers a whopping 1.84% efficiency.

The claim of 1.84% efficiency doesn't seem useful. I think the more relevant measure is 158 mW per square centimeter, or 15.8 watts per square meter, given a temperature difference of 105 (C or K).

Key questions: how much does it cost, what are its maximum and minimum operating temperatures, and how long does it last? "... TEGs are reliable, environmentally friendly, have a long lifetime ...." but I don't know what "long" means.

If you read the actual paper, you will see that this process delivers a whopping 1.84% efficiency.

The Carnot efficiency of generating power from low grade heat is terrible, and then you slap a very inefficient Seebeck semiconductor thermoelectric generator on top of that, and about the best you can do is recharge your Apple Watch from the waste heat from your furnace.

This is not the solution to global warming.

As an actual link: Why the molten salt fast reactor (MSFR) is the “best” Gen IV reactor

That aside, it is a common misconception that only fast reactors can burn nuclear waste; it is the transuranic elements that drive waste concerns, and they will fission in thermal spectrum MSRs over time. The bulk of spent fuel is essentially natural uranium, which is harmless and can be easily separated and set aside. LFTR49 is the most effective and fastest way to transform of our stockpiles of spent fuel into useful energy and materials.

The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.

Bullshit. "Starvation mode" doesn't exist, straight up*. What does happen is that you need fewer calories as you lose weight, because fat (like every other cell in your body) consumes energy: less fat means less energy consumed. The idea that your body can miraculously can metabolic efficiency just because you've lost some weight is garbage that makes absolutely no sense: our bodies have had literally millions of years of evolution to become basically as efficient as it's possible for a biological organism to become. And in fact meta-analysis of studies have found that in fact the energy consumption after weight loss behaves exactly as expected. Yes, you can find individual studies that look at a dozen participants that find "metabolic adaptation" (such as the Biggest Loser study you link to elsewhere), but that's because if you perform enough studies of a topic, some of them will show what you want. In the case of that study, for example, the error bars on the measurement of the resting metabolic rate are nearly as big as the "effect".

As an aside: it's very well known that the Biggest Loser competitors lost weight in a horribly unhealthy and unsustainable fashion, essentially going on a crash diet with heavy exercise to lose weight rapidly, instead of being taught to moderate their intake and lose weight over a longer period (this article has more information, as well as tons of links to studies about metabolic adaptation and weight loss). You can lose weight like that (like a Scottish man who lost 276 lbs of weight doing that), but it's unhealthy and can even be dangerous.

Also, 1500 calories/day is perfectly healthy and sustainable for extended times (how long depends on your height, weight, and level of physical activity: a tall physically active man should usually eat more, a short sedentary woman probably needs to eat even less just to maintain a healthy weight). It doesn't even really matter how you get those calories (as long as you make sure you get enough micronutrients): you can lose weight eating mostly Twinkies and Hostess cakes.

*Note that once someone starts actually starving, your body will start consuming and shutting down internal organs, which could be called "starvation mode". But that doesn't happen until you reach basically 0% body fat and 0% lean muscle. But unless you literally have no access to food for a month or so, or are working in a force labor camp on 500 calories a day, that's not happening to you. Actual starvation looks like this. Skipping your daily venti mocha frappachino? Not even close to starvation.

Re: "I'm not putting you on the spot to defend yourself, but I've read many of your electric universe posts and the main thing missing from all of them is any indication that your theory explains any observations better than the conventional scientific approach that gravity dominates the large-scale structure of the universe."

Let's review the situation then:

NASA: Plasma, Plasma, Everywhere

Plasma often behaves like a gas, except that it conducts electricity and is affected by magnetic fields. On an astronomical scale, plasma is common. The Sun is composed of plasma, fire is plasma, fluorescent and neon lights contain plasma.

"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. "Very little material in space is made of rock like the Earth."

Such acknowledgements are common enough that we can list out all of the references.

Big Bang proponents have left the mistaken impression that the only way to explain microwaves coming at us from all directions - the "cosmic microwave background" - is with a Big Bang. In fact, this is totally incorrect:

"High-power microwave generation on earth belongs exclusively to devices using relativistic electron beams ... A relativistic electron beam that does not produce microwave radiation is unknown. These same basic mechanisms are likely to have their natural analogs in cosmic plasmas."

Then there is the problem with the CMB temperature predictions:

[Eric Lerner] First of all, the temperature of the microwave background - basically the amount of energy - was not what the Big Bang supporters had predicted. They had predicted a much higher temperature.

[Anthony Peratt] So, it was 50 degrees Kelvin that was being compared against the 2-5 degrees Kelvin from the steady state universe. This may not sound like much, but energy density - where we measure the absolute differences - the difference is four orders of magnitude: 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 difference. So, there is an enormous difference between 50 degrees Kelvin - a rather poor indicator of what is happening in the universe - and 3 degrees Kelvin.

A universe dominated by plasmas must be a filamentary universe. This claim was originally stated by Hannes Alfven in 1963 in a text titled "Cosmical Electrodynamics". He is referring here to cosmic plasmas:

"medium-density plasma (and perhaps also low-density plasmas) seem very often to be strongly inhomogeneous, exhibiting a filamentary structure which often may be parallel to the magnetic field."

Peratt noted:

"The suggestion that the universe be filamentary and cellular was generally disregarded until the 1980s, when a series of unexpected observations showed filamentary structure on the Galactic, intergalactic, and supergalactic scale."

Alfven predicted it, and anybody who has taken the time to learn the plasma-based model can see that without lots of filamentation at interstellar and intergalactic scales, there can be no plasma universe. That's because plasmas tend to form into filaments when they are conducting electric currents.

Like many of Alfven's successful predictions, it was ignored:

"According to some scientists and philosophers of science, a theory is or should be judged by its ability to ma

Scientific American has an obvious leftist political bias. Science Daily isn't as bad, but they're hardly neutral.

You might rethink your judgment of sources: the easiest possible way to stay inside an echo chamber is to dismiss actual sources of science information with "they have a leftist bias" and are "hardly neutral". Science does not have a "leftist bias" (nor, for that matter, a "rightist bias"). Science is science. If you are going to dismiss Scientific American, you're pretty much saying that you don't want to hear about actual science.

The Express article claims a global temperature drop of 1.3 C, which is enough to cause some harm to humanity as far as we know.

You dismiss Scientific American as "biased" and instead you take your news from the Express?!

The Express article talks about the "Maunder minimum", and then--without actually claiming causation--says that there was a temperature drop of 1.3 C "during this period". Unfortunately, there is some pretty good dating now showing that the temperature drop of the "little ice age" started MORE THAN A CENTURY before the Maunder minimum. Here's a good article: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

On the other hand, the wikipedia article on the Maunder Minimum casts doubt on the hypothesis that the Maunder Minimum caused that much temperature drop.

Ah, good. After dismissing science-centered sources like Scientific American, you go to Wikipedia. Actually, that's not a bad strategy, turns out that Wikipedia is often a decent source: even when they make dubious statements, they usually have good links to reputable sources. In any case, it's accurate on this one.

So AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. It means the (average) warming of the (whole) globe due to human activity. The Mechanism is the expected increase in greenhouse gasses, and therefore the increase in the greenhouse effect.

So if greenhouse gasses were decreasing, that would falsify AGW.

They have been measured to be increasing.

If the greenhouse effect were decreasing, that would falsify AGW.

It has been measured to be increasing.

If the temperature of the planet were decreasing, that would falsify AGW.
br
It has been measured to be increasing

WTF are you smoking?

".. whether antimatter falls down .." Or maybe it falls up?

There does exist an hypothesis by Marcoen Cabbolet that antimatter will fall up (in an environment of matter such as on earth, antimatter would fall down in an antimatter environment according to this theory) which will be tested by those CERN experiments :

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.201000063.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Indeed, gender—whether we subjectively feel male or female—is biological, not a social construct. An extremely large and consistent body of scientific research has shown that gender is the result of prenatal hormone exposure, even in the case of intersex individuals, as opposed to adults and society imposing gendered norms on unsuspecting children from the moment they leave the womb.

Africa and Arabia were warm, as was China. That suggests it spanned around at least the Northern hemisphere completely - and ALL the current climate models assume that North and South are somewhat linked, so what would be the mechanism to say it didn't happen globally?

sponsored by the alcoholic beverage industry

Just a few of those doing those 'alcohol industry backed' studies:

The School of Public Health at Harvard University
Catholic University of Campobasso
Kew-Kim Chew, epidemiologist, University of West Australia
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
Edward J. Neafsey, Ph.D., Loyola University Chicago
University of East Anglia

There are more. It looks like, according to you, the six universites above are in the pocket of the alcohol industry. Your claim, now go about backing it up.

Got any sources for those bold claims?

Why yes, I do.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

The NYT has a more readable summary with the key graphs: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

How about this, you stop using food as entertainment and find something else. Also, vanity works far better as a reason to lose than health.

If you really believe that people are fat because they use food as "entertainment" then it rather undermines your advice to them. Also, if vanity worked then obesity would be cured by the magazines in the doctor's waiting room. The constant bombardment of images of thin bodies and the promotion of that standard of beauty would have fixed the problem long ago.

Shaming and depression are discredited as weight loss methods. In fact they tend to have the opposite effect. Fortunately medical science knows that and is making progress towards real solutions.

Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative.

It only took the very first result from 2018 on google scholar to give the lie to your assertion that "ECS seems to be trending downward"

mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies

Yes, but apparently excluding results that don't support the narrative. But let's go down the list of results from 2018:

The first, as we mentioned earlier, is right in line with studies from 50 years ago. Better exclude it from the ironically named "No tricks zone"..

The second suggests that century-scale feedbacks can alter the climate sensitivity, so some lower estimates that rely on satellite data may be underestimating. That doesn't support the narrative. Better exclude it.

The third and fourth look at crop yields and forest growth for different sensitivities. No points either way. But the fifth finds a central figure of 3.2K with a range of (1.58.1K). Uh oh. 8K on the high end! That's not good. Better exclude it.

It's not until the sixth when we find a study with a lower estimate.

At an 800,000 year scale, a "sudden" change takes thousands of years. We have reduced that to decades

Citation needed. Because the fact is we have no data supporting that claim. We can only see the past in resolution of hundreds or thousands of years, and we DO have data showing the same kind of "sudden" changes happening now as have happened just 80 years ago (check this graph, for instance).

If we had 1000s of years to slowly migrate our populations around, we wouldn't even notice, and the same is largely true of the rest of nature.

Thankfully, our ability to migrate and mitigate has increased 100 times what it was, just 100 years ago. 100 years ago, airplane travel was non-existent, the car was a novel thing, and coal boats were still slowly replacing sailing ships. Life has changed in 100 years, and IF we needed to relocate a few million people in 100 years, it would be trivial to do so. Not that we need to, however; Holgate's 2007 paper shows a slowing sea level rise, and Frederikse's 2018 paper confirms Holgate's conclusions. It's not even staying linear in increase, it's slowing down.

In North Sea on an offshore rig at elevation about 180 feet (say 30 fathoms high, 60 metres approx) wave crashed into and over the rig. Yes a rough wave, unusual but actually recorded due to rig height!. This is one of a number of 'extreme wave heights'.
Link: Paid Paper.
http://offshoremechanics.asmed...
Free but 'averaged' data (mean heights)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

though actually you are also wrong there

Maybe not. A Seattle Times Op-ed counterpoint brings up issues with the study that seem worth considering:

Specifically, let’s look at all the workers who are simply left out of the analysis. By the UW team’s own admission, nearly 40 percent of the city’s low-wage workforce is excluded from the data: workers at multisite employers like Nordstrom, Starbucks, or even restaurants with a few locations like Dick’s. Even worse, any time a worker left a job with a single-site employer for one with a chain, that was treated as a “lost job” that was blamed on the minimum wage — and that likely happened a lot since the minimum wage was higher for those large employers.

Similarly, every time an employer raised its pay above $19 per hour — like Jimmy John’s did — it was counted not as a better job, but as a low-wage job lost as a result of the minimum wage.

That's an op-ed, of course, and not a study correcting perceived defects and presented in opposition. But that might not be necessary, per a Fortune Op-ed counterpoint:

It also stands in contrast to a massive trove of actually credible studies showing that raising the minimum wage is a boon for working class families and the communities they live in.

For instance, a team led by Michael Reich, an economics professor at University of California-Berkeley, looked at the impact of the Seattle wage increase on the food industry over the same period and found that wages did in fact go up for restaurant workers, and that employment wasn’t affected. These findings were, they claim, “in line with the lion’s share of results in previous credible minimum wage studies.”
[...]
Employers see big benefits, too. Workers stay on the job longer, reducing turnover and training costs. They’re also significantly more productive, according to researchers studying wage increases in the United Kingdom.

The op-ed continues with studies/references for other aspects of the increased min wage.

Lubricating fluids are also a problem:

  "It is shown that chip oxidation and adhering cutting fluid are the main sources for chemical contamination of the chips"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

Does the fact that there has been a for-profit campaign at misrepresenting the truth surrounding this topic make you question the path you took to come to the exact outcome they were aiming for?

Not for a second.

Then you're a true believer that won't question the dogma you've been fed. Good luck with that. It's great you're appealing to science. It's a good path. But part of science is re-examining your preconceived notions.

sigh, the irony. I've already pointed to the data you ask for later now and that you imply I refuse to. This is the last I'm gonna bother with responding as you seem disinclined to read anything that disagrees with your own preconceived notions.

I started out by pointing out the difference between global warming and climate change. Then I dug into the text you regurgitated from the IPCC report. I found what you were bitching about, and pointed out the text that followed in the very same report. Then I questioned where you actually got the values you were complaining about.

That's a lovely dump of some paper.

Now cough it up the actual values. SCIENCE. You've stated:

Uncertainty of the energy imbalance in climate models is GREATER than the energy imbalance caused by that CO2 increase, and by quite a lot.

1) What is the uncertainty of the energy imbalance in climate models? (The uncertainty for the factor for cloud feedback was +-0.7 W m–2 C–1)

From the IPCC AR5, Chapter 9 on evaluation of climate models. You'll find this on page 763 as I already pointed out.

Both the CMIP3 and CMIP5 model ensembles reproduce these patterns with considerable fidelity relative to the National Aeronautics and Space Adminsitration (NASA) Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) data sets (Pincus et al., 2008; Wang and Su, 2013). Globally averaged TOA shortwave and longwave components of the radiative fluxes in 12 atmosphere-only versions of the CMIP5 models were within 2.5 W m–2 of the observed values (Wang and Su, 2013). Comparisons against surface components of radiative fluxes show that, on average, the CMIP5 models overestimate the global mean downward all-sky shortwave flux at the surface by 2 ± 6 W m–2 (1 ± 3%) and underestimate the global downward longwave flux by 6 ± 9 W m–2 (2 ± 2%) (Stephens et al., 2012).

Now, if you care enough, you can go to the previous post and read the excerpts I gave you from Mauritsen on model tuning. From his setup, we know that modellers universally hand tune the TOA imbalance to the satellite record, and the above IPCC ranges are AFTER tuning, so the true uncertainty is going to be higher still as tuning is compensating for unknowns(uncertainty). For the purpose of my claim though, we can even assume ALL the unknowns and uncertainties being tuned for don't exist or cancel themselves out. The inter model average deviation from observation of 2.5 W m-2 is plenty.

2) What is the energy imbalance caused by CO2 increases?

This is the main thrust of your argument, yet you've HAVEN'T ACTUALLY STATED WHAT THEY ARE. Other than.... "A lot".

The energy imbalance causing the recent warming is 0.5-0.7 W m-2. I already again pointed this out up thread referencing NASA's direct satellite observations. You then waved it away as irrelevant to whether or not climate change is happening, despite the fact we never disagreed on that...

Here's a different reference then for the same from Mauritsen(one of the papers the IPC references) while discussing the tuning process for their model, although one of his references for the imbalance they target is the same team under Hansen at NASA I referen

Yes, let's get back to TOTALLY DODGING THE QUESTION: .

Does the fact that there has been a for-profit campaign at misrepresenting the truth surrounding this topic make you question the path you took to come to the exact outcome they were aiming for?

Answer it, you bastard.

If you agree that there is not uncertainty when it comes to measured global warming them I'm good.

Only because you asked so nice.

Not for a second.

Do you acknowledge that our climate models are only as good as their predictions of the global energy imbalance?

No. That's more like global warming models. The aggregate. The global warming models are only as good as their predictions of global energy imbalance, those two things are practically synonymous. Climate models would be the resulting shifts in.... mostly the water cycle, but also wind patterns, and where storms develop. Ocean currents as well I guess. Global warming and the resulting changes to climate are very much tied to the hip of one another and I don't think you'll argue that global warming leads to climate change. The less certain we are about how hot it's going to get the less we can predict climate changes. I think this actually leans in your favor, but it's good to be precise.

You've shifted from complaining about the size of the error margins in Top of Atmosphere heat exchange to the IPCC's comments about modelling cloud effects. ...oh, I see where you lifted that from. The IPCC report, page 750, box 9.1. Yeah, it mentions "For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. " My argument against that would be to READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING INFOBOX. The IPCC itself states about the models: "There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century" IE, they CAN INDEED "hindcast", as you claimed they cannot. On model tuning: "What emerges is that the models that plausibly reproduce the past, universally display significant warming under increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, consistent with our physical understanding."

...

So you start by answering that NO, climate models aren't only as good as their predictions of the global energy imbalance, and then start talking as though global warming models are an entirely different thing. We are talking about climate models ability to hindcast past warming and the predict future warming. Highschool physics already is enough that you should understand the driving of any changes to the global climate over time is entirely coming from the energy coming and out of the system, yet you want talk around that.

And you prattle on some more continually misunderstanding the heart of things, and for a chuckle, dodging the other simple questions. Did you mean to start your post with talk of dodging questions as a form of irony?

I'm tired of trying to get you to look at the science of the models only to be met with tirades of how that's just what Big Oil wants you to believe...

I'm instead going to simply directly quote the peer reviewed science itself, here's the Mauritsen article the IPCC referenced along with a dozen others on model tuning. I'm including excerpts below that I've been paraphrasing to you in short from. It's fairly written in straightforward language and it's unambigious it matches what you won't listen to from me:

The need to tune models became apparent in the early days of coupled climate modeling, when the top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance was so large that

The problem is that the data doesn't match the models

IPCC projected warming of about 0.2C/decade. The trend on the satellite record is 0.19C/decade. Pretty damn good.

Look at HadCRUT4 from 1895 to 1943, and then again from 1957 to 2005.

The trend from 1895-1943 was somewhere between 0.045 C/decade and 0.109 C/decade (2).

The trend since 1957 was somewhere between 0.112 C/decade and 0.154 C/decade.

They're not really close - there's not even overlap in the uncertainty - and possibly the current trend is over three times greater than that of the early 1900s.

Nonetheless, if you want to understand this period you shoudl read the literature rather than conspiracy blogs: "Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p >.8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing, offset to some extent by aerosols. Natural variability also made a large contribution..."

...If the atmosphere can hold more water vapor as the temperature increases, and more water will evaporate as the temperature increases, it seems we have a control mechanism for ocean levels.

No, it's too small an effect, I'm afraid. It would take a lot of water in the atmosphere to reduce ocean levels by an amount high enough to make a difference in sea level-- once you get to the runaway greenhouse effect (i.e. Venus), sure, but it's only a small effect on Earth. (And despite what you may think from what popular media sometimes says, Earth conditions remain far from thermal runaway. Anthropogenic emissions tweak the temperature enough to notice on human scales, but that's because we live in the narrow band between about 273K and 300K.)

A nice summary of water in the atmosphere here, if you're interested: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

The CO2 theory of climate change was disproved by Angstrom in 1901, and not revived for fifty years. Callendar 1949 gives an overview of what it calls the theory's "chequered history". CFCs were used for decades before their effects in the upper atmosphere became known, and even Lovelock's initial discovery vindicated them. For lead you should refer to the Wikipedia articles on the subject of TEL, Robert Kehoe, and Clair Patterson. Probably Thomas Midgely's promotional efforts are relevant to both of those stories. Sugar, lead, and tobacco are all good examples of industries which swindled the government and the American public for decades based on bogus studies; the tobacco companies are particularly infamous for this. I'm not sure why your idea of science is so fragile that it can't be wrong occasionally.

There is some merit in this argument, however, I believe in the minimum amount of this to ensure people have reasonable lives, and the minimum interference of government in other areas of people's lives.

So does everybody, for some definition of "reasonable" and "minimum". Even the Nazis believed that, they simply thought that "minimum" meant carting Jews off to the gas chambers. Modern Europeans believe that it means taking more than half of people's productive labor (that's more than under slavery). It's the definition of "reasonable" and "minimum" where all the differences between political views are.

Private property would not exist in any meaningful way for an extended period without government backing it up, though. It would be nice if it didn't require this, but realistically it does.

I know of no evidence for this. To the contrary, game theory and biology suggest the opposite. Nor is government required to create free markets.

Er, I don't see much interference of freedom of association from the libertarian left, so that seems to be inserting your prejudice and imposing it on what you believe to be the views of others, when it is not.

More weasel words ("much interference", "from the libertarian left", "your prejudice", etc.). Do you have a specific point to make?

If you think that, I don't think you know what authoritarian means

I gave my definition and criteria for authoritarianism. You're welcome to do the same, instead of refering to unnamed authorities. Specifically, why do you think that a form of government that forcibly takes around half of the labor of people and regulates pretty much every aspect of their public and private lives shouldn't be called "authoritarian"?

So your argument is that young boys experience less anxiety about math, which means that they are less likely to become disinterested in it or averse to it which leads to higher likelihood of employment in fields that require larger amounts of math, but also that the levels of anxiety experienced by boys/girls in relation to math is not biological? The first part of that sounds perfectly reasonable, but the last half of it is a rejection of reality in favor of constructing a hypothesis to fit a conclusion that has already been drawn.

I'll never be able to wrap my head around why some people believe that men and women can have vastly different biology that leads to differences in sex organs, bone density and skeletal structure, muscle mass, and plenty of other aspects but that those differences will stop at the neck. You can take an MRI scan of a brain and reliably categorize a person as male or female based on what it looks like.

To believe that there's no biological basis for this difference is ignoring common sense on top of a mountain of evidence. The number of studies into infant toy preference show that there are some obvious differences from a very young age. Similar studies conducted with other primates that have found similar results seem to suggest that these differences date quite far back into our evolutionary past.

I'm not even sure why it matters either. If women are less interested in something than men (or vice versa) what does it matter as long as you ensure that the women and men who are interested in pursuing some field of study are able to do so? Women (and by extension men) shouldn't be forced into careers that they don't prefer just to appease people with idiotic notions related to sex and biology. If I go to a mechanic, a dentist, or any other professional, I want someone who's passionate about their job and don't care about whether they're male/female, black/white, gay/straight, etc. Give people the opportunity to do what makes them happiest and they're going to lead more satisfying lives.

As the original paper describes, they don't send the full 18 Mpix to the display - they use a foveated transport system, where the displayed image is a much lower pixel density (e.g. 1280 x 1600 pixels, upscaled to fit the display resolution) except for a small window (640 × 640) of high-density pixels located where the eye is actually looking (as determined by an eye-tracking system).

They pack the high-density image data into a few extra scanlines of the low-density image, with a little metadata to describe where it should go, then send the resulting 1280 x 1922 image to the display, where an onboard microcontroller does the bilinear upscale of the low-density image and composites the high-density window in place.

So propeller heads and prognosticators, how will these VR headsets be connected to their controllers?

The paper covers this ground nicely.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

Should be this one: https://www.androidauthority.c...

That links to the more interesting: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

Link.

Karma whoring like I just don't care.

"I'll show you my link if you show me yours."

Well here are four separate studies that all reach the same conclusion.
https://repository.law.umich.e...
https://www.ussc.gov/research/...
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mu...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

I can probably find more if needed.

Let's define neurotoxin.

Neurotoxins are toxins that are poisonous or destructive to nerve tissue (causing neurotoxicity).[3]

In biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances in organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when an organism absorbs a sufficient quantity.[1][2]

Neurotoxicity is a form of toxicity in which a biological, chemical, or physical agent produces an adverse effect on the structure or function of the central and/or peripheral nervous system.[1]

What is capsaicin then?

The burning and painful sensations associated with capsaicin result from its chemical interaction with sensory neurons. Capsaicin, as a member of the vanilloid family, binds to a receptor called the vanilloid receptor subtype 1 (TRPV1).[52] First cloned in 1997, TRPV1 is an ion channel-type receptor.[53] TRPV1, which can also be stimulated with heat, protons and physical abrasion, permits cations to pass through the cell membrane when activated. The resulting depolarization of the neuron stimulates it to signal the brain. By binding to the TRPV1 receptor, the capsaicin molecule produces similar sensations to those of excessive heat or abrasive damage, explaining why the spiciness of capsaicin is described as a burning sensation.

It depolarizes your neurons and causes all kinds of effects on your nervous system. That covers both poison and neurotoxicity.

Here's a paper titled "Neurotoxic effect of capsaicin in mammals" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And here's one titled "Capsaicininduced neuronal degeneration in the brain and retina of preweanling rats" - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

So if it looks like a neurotoxin, smells like a neurotoxin and acts like a neurotoxin, maybe it's a neurotoxin? And if he didn't get brain damage from eating it, the brain damage must have occurred prior to eating, because brain damaged he is. What sane person willingly consumes high quantities of neurotoxins as a sport?

except it does work... try it.
Woundhealing effect of acupuncture for treating phonotraumatic vocal pathologies: A cytokine study

Here's the link to the actual paper:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

I'd say a 1,500 km wide circular shock wave might be visible if you're looking up from that part of the planet.

Several studies have been released on this subject.

The IAEA, the Russian Federation has also produced a report, with the effects on males and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has also produced a report.

The question being What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?

One analysis revealed that in the study group, the number of follicles was lower than that in the control group. The decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries.

The general findings suggest that emissions from wi-fi routers and the X-ray scanners used before boarding have enough energy in them to damage the mitachondrial DNA within the unfertilized eggs carried in girls. Energetic emissions absorbed into the body damages reproductive cells in both sexes which causes transgenic diseases that can manifest in the next generation.

Damage to mitochondrial DNA in the eggs of girls, who are born with their entire inventory of eggs, occurs as low as 10 Gy according to some of the papers. Considering that any damage done to mitachondrial DNA will be passed down to *all* subsequent human generations as an increased prevalence of many kinds of inherited diseases, accumulating the more we are exposed to it, it shouldn't be too difficult to take a pragmatic view of this issue and decide what is really important to us.

Being pragmatic about what that means, wifi affects children more because they have a lower body mass than adults, that they need to keep their distance from wifi because they have less water, muscle and bone to shield their reproductive system, that schools should be cabled with fibre optic and ethernet instead of trying to scrimp installation costs with wi-fi. They're not difficult problems to solve by making simple construction and infrastructure decisions.

The thing we have to remember is we cook food with this wavelength all that differs is the wattage and time it takes to do the cooking. Yikes!

That's from an editorial in Mother Jones about 5 years back which made a big splash on the Internet, but didn't provide much evidence (mainly it just asserted the correlation was strong enough to be irrefutable).

A perusal of recent research on the topic turns up this recent JAMA paper which concluded that after controlling for childhood socioeconomic status, "Findings failed to support a dose-response association between BLL and consequential criminal offending." That would suggest that it's growing up in poverty which leads to future criminal behavior. And indeed if you look at the historical poverty rate, it dropped substantially right around 1970, around the time leaded gasoline began being phased out. And if you compare poverty rate by race, you find that the two races with the highest crime rates (black and hispanic) also have the highest childhood poverty rates.

This study which states "The consequences of lead exposure for later crime are theoretically compelling, but direct evidence from representative, longitudinal samples is sparse," reaches pretty much the same conclusion, but may be more useful as it provides direct links to other Google Scholar papers on the topic.

This isn't to say lead is safe. It's known to depress IQ, and though the link with future criminal behavior is weak, it is more strongly linked to antisocial behavior and delinquency. Just that the "irrefutable" link between leaded gasoline and crime presented in the Mother Jones article may in fact just have been a random correlation, not causation.

I posted a NASA paper which states that ice is accumulating overall in Antarctica.

Aaand someone posted a citation proving you were wrong. Do you think we can't read?

And that West Antarctica has localized loss, and also has a rather marked increase in geothermal activity under the ice.

The actual science says that the plume has been for several geographical eras, so hardly "marked increase".

Did you assume we can't google?

Interestingly there might be deep reasons why men are more prone to autism and aspergers

Actually - it turns out that diagnosis presents differently in girls/women and that many (high functioning, although that term has been dropped from the DSM-V, I still use it to differentiate the set of people who have enough social communication skills to 'pass') ASD women get misdiagnosed, or go undiagnosed.

There is some legitimate debate in the medical community if there is a biological basis for the difference in expression of the symptoms in autism in women, or if it comes form the fact that society, when faced with a non-socially-conforming female puts into place a social training regime that would make most intensive behavioral invention programs jealous, which works to lower the observable impact of the symptoms. As in most things, it's probably a bit of column A and a bit of column B.

Since we don't know what causes Autism, it's difficult to say how prevalent it is in women. It's worth noting that the prevalence of diagnosed cases in women has increased over the years though, which absent a causal factor to increase its expression in women suggests that we are still coming to grips with the different symptoms in women.

Some background reading for those interested:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://www.autism.org.uk/about...

Source: I'm the father of a newly diagnosed ASD daughter, and research is how I deal with life. Please, if you have a child, male or female, and you suspect ASD, get them tested. If it's significant enough that you suspect it, it's also impacting their lives.

My daughter was diagnosed years late because her pediatrician mistook the symptoms for shyness, and it wasn't until she was seen and tested by a specialist that we got the correct diagnosis.

Min

"Cloak" pft. What rubbish.

But hey, if this paper in "Social and Personality Psychology Compass" with it's 32 citations isn't real science or it's been discredited, I really would like to see the refutation. Come on, put a little effort into it. Dig in. You claim it's "widely discredited". If that's not just completely made up hog-wash, then go find some material saying so. Please, something from a journal, and not a blog. I hope you understand, we don't want pseudo-scientific nonsense here.

Did you actually read any of those links from WUWT? As usual, what that blog claims and what the papers really say are often quite different. Here, let me list them for you, along with quotes from their abstracts:
Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, and Woodworth 2008:

We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr^2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century... the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.

Thomas Frederikse 2017:

Over the same period [1958-2014], the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm yr^2

Dieng, Cazenave, Meyssignac, Ablain 2017:

An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004–2015) compared to the 1993–2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.

Chen, Zhang, Church, Watson, King, Monselesan, Legresy & Harig 2017:

Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 2014. This is in approximate agreement with observed increase in GMSL rise, 2.4 ± 0.2mmyr1 (1993) to 2.9 ± 0.3mmyr1 (2014), from satellite observations that have been adjusted for small systematic drift.

The single cited paper that didn't solidly confirm the accelerating rise of global mean sea level was Holgate 2007, who merely found "high variability in the rates of sea level change", and suggested that the first half of the 20th century rose a little faster than the second half. But that study was based solely on just nine "carefully selected" tide level gauges (where the selection criteria are thinly described at best).

Did you actually read any of those links from WUWT? As usual, what that blog claims and what the papers really say are often quite different. Here, let me list them for you, along with quotes from their abstracts:
Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, and Woodworth 2008:

We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr^2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century... the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.

Thomas Frederikse 2017:

Over the same period [1958-2014], the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm yr^2

Dieng, Cazenave, Meyssignac, Ablain 2017:

An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004–2015) compared to the 1993–2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.

Chen, Zhang, Church, Watson, King, Monselesan, Legresy & Harig 2017:

Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 2014. This is in approximate agreement with observed increase in GMSL rise, 2.4 ± 0.2mmyr1 (1993) to 2.9 ± 0.3mmyr1 (2014), from satellite observations that have been adjusted for small systematic drift.

The single cited paper that didn't solidly confirm the accelerating rise of global mean sea level was Holgate 2007, who merely found "high variability in the rates of sea level change", and suggested that the first half of the 20th century rose a little faster than the second half. But that study was based solely on just nine "carefully selected" tide level gauges (where the selection criteria are thinly described at best).

Citation. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.

It is new in that this article shows the satellite altimetry, while the article you cite, showing similar trends, combines tide-gauge and satellite data to get a much longer data set. Basically, that article is using satellite data to calibrate tide-gauges, and then using that calibration to measure historical sea level rise.

Good article, though.

Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.

Yes, exactly: it is useful when different work by different groups shows the same result. This is reproducability, which is important in science.