Slashdot Mirror
Mainstream Scientists Cashing In On Climate Wagers (reuters.com)
Layzej writes: Climate contrarians have long predicted imminent global cooling. A few have been willing to place wagers that mainstream scientists have been quick to accept. Often acceptance of the bet is followed by immediate retraction, as was the case when "Bastardi's Wager" was accepted by Joseph Romm or when Maurice Newman's $10,000 bet was accepted by physicist Brian Schmidt. In some cases, bets have been formalized and the terms of many of those wagers are coming to a close. It may not be surprising to learn that those who put their money on the side of mainstream science are the ones who are cashing in.
Reuters reports that British climate expert Chris Hope just won a 2,000 pound sterling ($2,830) wager made five years ago against two members of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who had bet Hope that the Earth would be cooling by now. They also highlight a $10,000 bet made in 2005 between British climate modeler James Annan and two Russian solar physicists. The solar physicists had counted on waning solar output to halt warming. Annan will win if average global temperatures from 2013-17 are warmer than 2003-07. "Things are looking good for my bet," Annan said.
Keith Pickering reports on a series of three bets between Brian Schmidt and climate contrarian David Evans, who also believed that diminishing solar output would dominate the temperatures of the last decade and beyond. The wagers pay out in 2019, 2024, and 2029. Pickering concludes, "What Evans apparently doesn't realize is that because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, within narrow bounds we can already predict what global temperatures will be in 2019, 2024, and 2029. And David Evans is going to lose his shirt."
Reuters reports that British climate expert Chris Hope just won a 2,000 pound sterling ($2,830) wager made five years ago against two members of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who had bet Hope that the Earth would be cooling by now. They also highlight a $10,000 bet made in 2005 between British climate modeler James Annan and two Russian solar physicists. The solar physicists had counted on waning solar output to halt warming. Annan will win if average global temperatures from 2013-17 are warmer than 2003-07. "Things are looking good for my bet," Annan said.
Keith Pickering reports on a series of three bets between Brian Schmidt and climate contrarian David Evans, who also believed that diminishing solar output would dominate the temperatures of the last decade and beyond. The wagers pay out in 2019, 2024, and 2029. Pickering concludes, "What Evans apparently doesn't realize is that because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, within narrow bounds we can already predict what global temperatures will be in 2019, 2024, and 2029. And David Evans is going to lose his shirt."
an even bet
That is like betting on how long it is going to take the Titanic to sink, while you are ON the Titanic.
Clinton is still by far the favorite. The only shocking thing is that it isn't as certain as it was before.
Yeah, totally made a killing when I bet that the Chiefs would take out the Patriots last week.
All I had to do was apply a few post-game corrections to the score and the money just flowed right in.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
...are soon parted.
"War makes me sad." - Me
I don't know about the others, but I can see at least with Bastardi's Wager, they went with satellite data. That proved to be wise in retrospect. As regardless of which you use, lower troposphere satellite data has shown much less warning than the land/sea models used by the NOAA and the like. For them, 2015 was the third warmest year, and 2010 and champion 1998.
To actually make wagers expecting cooling seems extreme. Why not simply bet that warming would come in far short of the predictions mainstream scientists were putting out at the time? Maybe they couldn't get anyone to bite on those terms, maybe they were just that cocky, or most likely, they just wanted the media from putting money up predicting cooling.
Whatever the reason, if they'd wagered on more sane "you're models show too much warming" terms, they could have made some good money.
It is forecasted that the Americans have a 100% chance of losing.
Well, at least losing the shirt will make it easier to withstand the higher temperatures.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Who cares what the semantics are, save that for political debates. Losing capital relating to scientific wager. Easy to decide the winner. Seems one confident group of people are losing money. Let's keep it simple. Who won the bets?
The subject may say it all . . . While the right to say "I told you so" is nice, it sucks to be in the situation to say it.
www.wavefront-av.com
If David loses he won't need his shirt. So the downside is limited.
I know that I should not feed the trolls, but why do you put up two mildly offensively obtuse straw men in your last two paras? The alternative names were to try to get past the petty carping of the "skeptics" though all remain valid just like there are multiple different words meaning 'pig-headed' or 'stupid' for example, and NO ONE in mainstream science is predicting *weather* or exact temperatures in "the following decades" and you well know it.
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Your favorite, obviously. Nothing shocking about your post.
Excellent! Unfortunately, most are up there in age and probably won't be around long enough to reap the anti-benefits.
Betting your life doesn't matter much if you are due to "check out" soon anyhow. They probably value their money more, and losing THAT would make them cry like a toddler.
Table-ized A.I.
Morons who don't understand basic math, record keeping, science, logic.
We tried climate skeptics, but you complained. So we moved to deniers and you complained again, like a little whiny Trump.
As for your references to what we call climate change, again, one of those terms is 50 year old reference, the rest are names YOU made up and insisted we use.
We can only bend over backwards to help you out so many times.
You asked about what the temperature is supposed to be. The answer to that is simple.
We are talking about a SMALL change - 2 degrees Celsius in the next century. That can have a huge impact. Because it is so small, most people don't notice it. It's not enough to be visible and you should not notice it. Note, the world has already experienced a 1 degree Celsius change over the past 100 years.
But 1 degree Celsius is real, easily measurable, and our best projections show it will be at LEAST 2 degrees in 100 more years, possibly as much as 5 degrees. Now, even 5 degrees won't be enough to stop snow from falling most places. But it will be enough to melt large portions of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica, rising sea level enough to flood most major costal cities, where most of the wealth in the world currently resides.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working.
Care to make a wager on that?
It depends which temperature record you are using. The Satellite records are better quality, as they cover the entire Earth evenly with a single instrument, all measurements taken at the same time of day using the same method, and so on. So there is nothing to adjust. Using any combination of those high-quality records, 2015 is about the 3rd warmest year they have seen, behind the previous El Nino year of 1994, IMS. So don't lose sight of the real long-term trend, which may still be downward. Picking the highest year of this cycle isn't a very good comparison.
Your local temperature will be almost irrelevant. It could be warmer, it could even be colder. Even now, the atmosphere doesn't cool or warm the surface in a uniform fashion everywhere.
Adding 2 degrees to the entire system is adding energy to the whole world's climate. That could express itself by more energetic behavior which could generate locally colder temperatures in certain places and certainly much warmer temperatures in others.
In reality, you'll see low lying islands go underwater and also some coastal flooding due to rising sea levels because ice packs are big enough to have a global effect if they start melting even slightly faster. Bad news, but not the end of the world. Global warming doesn't mean we end up like Venus, it means we have a humanitarian crisis on our hands due to displaced persons and loss of coastal cities.
For that reason, I think we need to be less concerned about taking extreme measures for "stopping" AGW as much as we should be starting evacuation preparations for the point in the future where we need to get people out of there. In the meantime we'll be able to replace our carbon releasing power sources on a more attainable timeframe.
going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, to climate change, to climate weirding and seemingly back to climate change.
Because that is what is happening. When I was in college getting my degree in physics and took a couple physics of the weather classes, we constantly talked about global cooling because that is what was happening. Those Republicans of course didn't recognize the truth. After I graduated college, global warming became a huge danger, so we talked about that for a couple of decades. Now, it's not just warming that threatens us. It is change.
The visual image of Limbaugh bawling like a baby fills me with elation and deep disgust.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working... a new term has been coined.
This is a legit improvement. It's not a loaded term unlike "climate denier" or "climate alarmist".
Granted, this is from the same group who has had a hard time naming the issue, going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, to climate change, to climate weirding and seemingly back to climate change.
There's a place for most of those terms (drop "climate weirding" into a casket and bury it). When they're used appropriately to their meaning, they're useful. But it continues to annoy me when someone uses "climate change" strictly for anthropogenic global warming (especially, when they're also completely ignoring others sorts of anthropogenic climate change like the trio of habitat destruction: urbanization, deforestation, and desertification).
Election or primary?
There's a reason I'm asking for the distinction...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Oh look: moron alert!
going from global cooling
You've latched on to an old thing that was reported in the popular press decades ago and never widely accepted by mainstream science. This identifies you as an idiot who clearly has a strong opinion but has not lifted a finger to find out the actual truth behind it.
to global warming
Global warming means the earth is getting hotter.
anthropomorphic global warming,
This means people are causing the earth to get hotter.
to climate change,
The earth warming will cause the climate to change.
How is that so hard to understand?
climate weirding
I'm pretty sure you just made that up or got it off someone's tumblr pages.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the temperature is supposed to be.
No you're not.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
A line with only two data points in it? Nothing suspicious about that at all.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Citation?
Haven't we all seen the glacial core samples that show the earth warming and cooling all by itself over it's recent lifespan (millions of years)? And that we currently fit right into one of those peaks. Which would suggest it's all a natural occurrence?
Don't get me wrong I'm all for cutting down, and out, pollution of all kinds. But I still haven't seen any evidence of man-made global warming. Just data on a warming planet and a whole bunch of post hoc ergo propter hoc rhetoric which just so happens to further consolidate money and power into their hands..
Oh my, so many confusing terms! Surely they all refer to the exact same thing and were made by the exact same people for the sole purpose of running a long con, and their mere existence debunks the science of the people who are neither of the above, right? Also, somebody call physics and tell them we are on to their game. Which is it nerds: standard model, supersymmetry, strings, multiverse? You're all full of shit!
What if Sanders wins in Iowa? The most recent poll shows he's pulled ahead (and I believe it's beyond the margin of error).
As for me, I'm still holding hope for O'Malley. Go Martin! Move those tortoise legs!!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I guarantee you though after the snowstorm this weekend there will be a lot of pig headed people claiming that this is proof that global warming is a hoax. That's why people don't say "global warming" anymore because it causes Bubba to say "dem smarty pants scientists sure is stupid, eh?"
Mr. Beck has bawled many times on his show for very unusual "reasons". The bunch of them would be comical if not for the number of followers who take them seriously. The Bozo Cult.
Table-ized A.I.
Hillary polls worse against the Republicans than Sanders. Sanders is gaining, as Clinton stagnates. A few early wins for Sanders would likely swing the polls in the others, as people take him more seriously. The fact he was completely ignored by the mainstream media is why he polls low, not that he's disliked or hated as much as many hate Clinton.
Learn to love Alaska
Well it's not like he's going to need a shirt the way the temperatures keep going.
...because betting is a tax on bullshit. If anything needs to be taxed in this country, it's bullshit.
That said, it doesn't look like anyone has changed their minds over these bets. Even the losers are ignoring the holes in their pockets. I guess we need more bets...
It's also interesting to know who is making the bets. I've always wondered who genuinely disbelieves global warming and who claims to be a skeptic for political (or other) reasons. I'm guessing those that make large bets are sincere.
I agree with the 'relocation' idea, but frankly, look at New Orleans... heck, look at Denmark! It's going to be levies all the way... nobody is leaving the coastal regions until they are absolutely forced to. When Manhattan looks like Venice, they'll just build boats instead of taxies.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Humanitarian crisis? Initially sure. But in the end....
This will end up in war, a really really nasty one as those nations with surplus population being displaced look to take land and resources from others. There have been very few situations in human history where a large population was displaced that didn't end up in war.
global warming *cough* "Climate Change"
The warming of the earth causes the climate to change. Why do the nutjobs think they've stumbled on a deep conspiracy when they discover two different terms for different aspects of the same thing?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
> as much as we should be starting evacuation preparations for the point in the future where we need to get people out of there
I completely agree. Global warming (and thus sea level rise) is going to happen, this is what the scientists are predicting, and I don't think there is a single proposal that gets it to halt entirely. We can and probably should slow it down by changing some behavior, but it simply won't be enough.
Some of the upper estimates for sea level rise are 6 feet. So we either build levees or move people to higher ground. Why are we still wringing our hands and trying to convince every last person to agree? I want to see a plan and then progress on building levees. If enough people vote against the levees, then we'll just have to deal with relocating people. But there is no stopping this thing. I can imagine a 50 year project to build the levees at a sane rate that will only have a small impact on the overall economy.
Of course it's getting warmer, we're still coming out of an ice age. The question isn't whether it's getting warmer or not, it's whether man is accelerating it.
The bet is rigged. It's like betting the trainer that the horse will can't lose. All the trainer has to do is "adjust" the horse feed.
Ummm... what?? We are in an inter-glacial period. That is true. Which means temperatures are currently higher than they were during the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago. On geological time scales, temperatures have been both higher and lower than they are now. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If you scroll down to the "overall view" section, they give a nice graph showing how things have varied on many different time scales. In the last half billion years, they've been as much as 6 degrees colder and 14 degrees warmer than right now.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
No, they've actually done that 0 times. What they've often done, and continue to do, is try to find ways to remove sources of error from the data. That's called "calibration", and is an essential part of any measurement technology.
Ars Technica just published a very thorough article about this, describing all the different types of corrections and why they're needed. See http://arstechnica.com/science.... If you truly want to understand the subject, I highly recommend it. On the other hand, if you're just being a troll and don't care about the facts (I don't know whether you are or not--that's for you to decide), you obviously should ignore it.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working... a new term has been coined.
Yes, "losers."
Ask me about my sig!
anthropomorphic global warming,
This means people are causing the earth to get hotter.
No, it actually means that warming is occurring in a way that is characteristically human (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). I think you are both trying to grasp for the word anthropogenic, which means something which is caused by humans.
Thus endeth the pedantry.
You can create a predictive model by retro-fitting current observations to past data, looking at trends and making certain assumptions, but it's still only a model. Such a model can be used, but it should never be "believed".
There's a pen sitting on my desk. I'm going to make a prediction: if I pick it up, then release it, it will fall back down again. But remember, I don't know. Predicting the future is not science. I just have a model based on past data and making certain assumptions. Such models can be used, but they should never be believed.
Ok, let's try it and see. Here goes...
Oh look! It fell! What a surprise! Isn't it amazing I got that right, even though my prediction was not based on science and there was no reason to believe it?
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Thus endeth the pedantry.
I have been sonudly out pedanted. I yield the floor to you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
I've seen "global weirding" used to express the fact that we're not just going to get an even 2K all over the planet, but that the extra energy is going to cause a lot of different effects.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I bet you got butthurt because the climate deniers having to pay their lost bets...
A lot of the scientists I know are buying the S&P 500 index minus fossil fuels ETF. It's a bet that people will continue to deny reality and it makes it so you take out the overvalued fossil fuels and replace them with the higher performing Near Dogs Of The Dow.
Is that a bet? Nah, it's our retirement.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You sounds like one of those "gravity alarmists" to me. Perhaps you should follow the trail of funding for those scientists who research gravity. They are paid to find out more about it NOT prove it doesn't exist.
Follow the money...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
In some parts of the world and with languages that aren't English we have always called what translates to "climate change". Global warming, greenhouse effect, etc, are just symptoms, not the term we use to refer to the phenomenon itself (but it's not that rare to call it using the symptom - global warming - just like when we have mild flu with fever we sometimes simply say have "a fever").
But even in English it has been referred as "climate change" for decades, and I give you the example of the naming of a specific convention in 1992, called "UN Convention on Climate Change", just as an example because they started using the term before that (in 1988 there was the "Conference on the Changing Atmosphere" in Toronto). Keep in mind that the term "global warming" was coined just a little over a decade before that (1975).
Regardless of what people call it, everyone knows what is being talked about, trying to pick on what people call it is denial (have you paid your lost bet yet?).
But I get from where you're coming, you're just spreading FUD.
climate weirding
Coined by someone who was tired of idiots jumping up every time someone had a cool day (even in the middle of winter) and claiming there can't be global warming because someone somewhere still needs a coat.
A major part of science is the ability to verify a theory by independently repeatable experiments and observations.
That's a pretty safe position to have, since we don't have multiple earths to experiment on and we'll be dead long before the results are in.
What you can do, when it is not practical to conduct an experiment, is to theorize using all available data. From this you can make predictions. Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't proven until many years after its formulation. Black holes were predicted far before there was any direct evidence of them. Same with the Higgs Boson.
Your requirement that independently repeatable experiments and observations can never be met.
It's our descendants that are going to pay the price, but I couldn't care less. I hope they die cursing your stupidity.
What is really going to drive the reality of climate change home will be disaster insurance premiums. People and companies in danger of coastal flooding as sea levels rise will have to pay higher and higher premiums or just give up and move to higher ground. Property values will decline or coastal cities will have to build infastructure at great expense (turn the Golden Gate Bridge into the Golden Gate Dam anyone?). And that is not to mention other effects of climate change, such as prolonged droughts.
Gee, I wonder how honest these people are. They make a bet and then do everything in their power to win it regardless of the truth. Mainstream media is a biased joke and to paraphrase Ben Franklin, the best educated people are those that don't read the newspaper,(or watch the mainstream media).
I'd wager you are not a programmer, it'll be a pretty safe bet as you appear to lack logic and math.
"No, they've actually done that 0 times. "
Uh, yes they have the most recent of which doubles the warming trend like I said in another post:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632
They're basically deflating the temperatures post-hiatus and inflating the temperatures pre-hiatus. Why they're making such extreme adjustments goes beyond reason, it's flat-out fraud.
Fyi, Ars Technica are a bunch of leftists extremists who censor the comments of anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative and promote bogus articles with nearly zero credibility.
Join the Maryland If-O'Malley-Wins-Secede-From-The-Union party today!!!
I don't care about the coastal cities and an extra few degrees will do us good. Look at the Pax Romana. After all, we are all just playing for time before the next ice age. Which is late anyway....
I bet advocates of pseudo science will always claim they're the victims of persecution.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess trying to associate those who don't accept the concept (or claimed extent) of man made global warming with the holocaust with the term 'deniers' wasn't working... a new term has been coined.
I've been occasionally using the term "climate contrarian" off and on for 5 years or so. But the term "climate science denier" is still perfectly apt for them.
Granted, this is from the same group who has had a hard time naming the issue, going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming, to climate change, to climate weirding and seemingly back to climate change.
The history of the term "climate change" in relation to warming induced by added CO2 goes back at least to the 1950s. "Global cooling" was never a mainstream idea even when it had some publicity in the 1970s.
Levees are fine but they won't work in much of Florida.
To warm the atmosphere of an entire planet by even a fraction of a degree man's massive amounts of energy are being trapped. At the moment the oceans are acting as a massive heat sink, at some considerable effect to ocean ecosystems, but that capacity is going to decrease and sooner or later the lower atmosphere and surface temperatures will begin showing of qreater temperatures. We will have permafrost melting and releasing methanez exacerbating the situation.
The simple fact, known for over a century, is that CO2 traps solar radiation. It isn't the least bit controversial.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And what is your solution to changing rainbelts which are going to wipe out agriculture in areas like the US Midwest? Sea level rise is probably the least of the things we have to worry about.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Christ! It's not a difficult concept. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere beyond normal background natural processes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You'd have to be crazy not to buy fossil fuels. Unless someone comes out with a miracle energy source (cold fusion or something) then fossil fuels will always go to the moon. They may temporarily slump as the oil barons kill off alternative energy competition but they will always go back up... Way, way up!
Christ! It's not a difficult concept. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere beyond normal background natural processes.
Which is why the new word for climate change deniers is "morons." Most of them are into other stupid crap, such as all sorts of conspiracy theories."Morons" covers the essential cause of why they do what they do.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You can create a predictive model by retro-fitting current observations to past data, looking at trends and making certain assumptions, but it's still only a model.
It's a good thing that the big climate models don't work that way. Instead they use the physics to create a physical model. The only use observations and temperature data have to that kind of model is as something to compare the output to.
NASA and NOAA are fudging the number, i.e. land and ocean temperature records, to push UP the trend and win the prize by forgery.
Sad and true.
There is a distinction between those who reject radiative physics (deniers) and those who hold a view contrary to the mainstream that is at least plausible. The folks from the Global Warming Policy Foundation are interested in advancing policy more than they are interested in understanding truth. To call them contrarians is probably very generous. On the other hand, the solar physicists who bet against Annan were basing their wager on research that they published. They had enough confidence in their research to put up $10,000. There is no crime in being wrong.
Politicians will use anything to achieve their true motives, like getting money where they want it. The guilt by association doesn't make climate change incorrect, and stopping all government action related to climate change will not stop oppression or pork.
Granted, this is from the same group who has had a hard time naming the issue, going from global cooling, to global warming, anthropomorphic global warming
Anthropomorphic?
If you don't even know what it's called, why should we believe you when you say that the science is wrong?
You should ring him up and place a bet. Honestly. That's what these scientists did when they noticed that someone else's model of the world was hopelessly broken.
The divergence of the raw data from the fully homogenized temperatures NOAA is peddling seems to coincide with the Great Thermometer die-off. Raw data are thinned out to provide more scope for adjustments. Anyone who thinks that these wildly interpolated and thrice-processed data have any useful degree of accuracy should just hand back their science diploma.
You are right, there are people who are really skeptics. When I've used the term "climate contrarians" it's usually in reference to people like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer who have the scientific training but as you say take a contrary position on the science.
Apply that test and does it pass?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Did they use verified data? or data doctored by "climate change" scientists?
Computer models? You get out what you put in, and the majority of the temperature is caused by the sun spots, those computer models would only be right by luck. And lets not forget, all the "climate change" predictions have been wrong. Though the wrong projections have been ignored.
Stupid bet since you can't predict if the temp goes up or down over a given few years.
Yeah, and NOAA's surface dataset is so incredibly broken (75% of the temperature sensors have gone offline since 2010 and many if not most of them are located within urban heat islands) they had to double the warming trend by lowering the temperatures pre-hiatus and jacking them up post-hiatus so that it would fit the alarmist narrative.
Quite the opposite. The adjustments actually lowered the overall trend. Here you can see unadjusted and corrected reconstructions side by side. Notice that the two are virtually identical in recent history. https://climatecrock.files.wor...
Earth has a ton of feedback systems. This is a bit like betting your internal temp will increase (to a meaningful degree) when you walk into a hot room. I would accept just about any bet where I win if the even doesn't happen or the feedback systems compensate, and I only lose if the event happens and the feedback systems don't compensate enough. Summary is wrong to credit being on the side of mainstream science. This is just probability.
betting on nearly anything is a gamble.
The fact that some people won a few bets on certain global warming predictions does nothing at all to offset all the opposite predictions the AG advocates have made that were wrong and would have cost THEM money had they put any on the line.
Manhattan was not under water in the summer of 2015 as predicted
The north pole was not ice free in the summer of 2015 as predicted
Presidential science adviser Holdren is famous for having lost a bet predicting the global depletion of many raw materials (which he bet we'd run out of decades ago)
Even the related catastophism prediction of "peak oil" has been turned into a joke with the current global glut of oil
Anybody betting EITHER way on any controversial issue involving future events and conditions is perfectly capable of losing the bet.
“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” - Yogi Berra
I'm refering to the massive adjustments made by Karl et al over the years which Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth has indirectly pointed out:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/us_rawadj_a-1280x931.png
The original term (used from 1950s-60s) was climate change. It was used in parallel with global warming from the 1960s with global warming becoming dominant in the 1970s, but climate change still in use. Now both are in use.
We need some preemptive nukes on parts of south asia and africa. The fact that they breed like cockroaches isn't helpful to the situation.
And an interesting point is that the global warming makes *more* snow likely as is dumping on he US right now, so the "Cold right now outside my house so can't be global warming, heh heh!" stupid is even more stupid...
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
Which is why they renamed it 'climate change', which is MEANINGLESS, yet always meant to be taken to mean 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
What a bunch of liars the 'climate scientists' are.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Do you really not know, or are you pretending not to understand? I'm not sure which is worse, ignorance or deliberate lies.
No, I do know and I do understand, I just hink people with opinions like you are utter raging morons.
It used to be called "global warming".
Yes it did, that's because that's what's happening.
But, this term got discredited due to scientists abusing science in order to push a left-wing agenda.
No it didn't. There was no discrediting. The globe is still warming.
So, they rebranded as "climate change"
Climate change is the visible aspect of global warming. You can't tell if the warth warms by a degree or two except by the effects it has on the climate and sea.
You're a fool if you think it's rebranding. Climate change is one thing caused by global warming. Pecision in language is a thing.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
??? The globe hsa not stopped warming. The warming of the globe still causes climate change.
Deep conspiracy? Why yes there is.
Pretty much this is evidence of nutjobbery.
None of your bizarre paranoid fantasies have anything to do with refuting that global warming causes climate change.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The only new thing is that climate change is singled out. So you can be sure that it's not about the potential oppression of the masses or a new attempt at wealth distribution that is at stake here. Because every other topic would do too. It's about people whose business model depends on ignoring the situation or pretending it wouldn't happen. And blindly reiterating their talking points makes clear that also you aren't interesting in the freedom of oppressed masses, and you would probably gladly accept any attempt at wealth redistribution as long as it promises to redistributes some wealth to you too.
"and NO ONE in mainstream science is predicting *weather* or exact temperatures in "the following decades" and you well know it"
that's because we should all already be dead from all the predictions made in the 70's 80's 90's and even some idiots predicted bad things would happen by now in the 00's.
that's the problem 40 years of failed predictions leave us tired of the doom and gloom. tired of the power/money grab. just tired of pathetic Chicken Littles, crying wolf all the time.
your earth death cult tires us. stop trying to hijack science and pretend your shit don't stink.
Not so massive that you can see it though right? And keep in mind, those adjustments actually REDUCED the trend: https://climatecrock.files.wor...
Anyone who believes that their "shit don't stink" has a problem. Do you believe that yours doesn't?
But we can avoid gratuitously making things worse.
And dismissing all things inconvenient because some other unrelated people made bad predictions is passive-aggressive stupid. Nostradamus made some bad calls but does that mean that you ignore all safety warnings and stab yourself with knives because all predictions of harm must be crap?
Being a functional adult includes trying to make rational decisions about what is good and what is bad amongst all the the noise and some bad actors. Not flailing out wildly against things that you happen not to like.
Describing me as in a death cult is rude and wrong and definitely not adult behaviour. Never mind that you don't know much about me personally.
On the other hand those that stick two fingers up at attempts to avert the risk of catastrophic risks including but not only climate change out of smugness or whatever really *are* risking widespread death and unhappiness.
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/
High-school physics lessons? I guess you didn't attend.
So you are saying those who agree with Lindzen and Spencer but are not scientists are "deniers", but those who agree with the alarmists "Karl, Schmit. Maan" are smart, intelligent people even if they dont have a science degree?
You do understand that is how religions are started and how people start thinking they are "righteous" and brand others as "heretics" right?
Maybe you didint think through your statement.
Some of the the upper estimates for sea level rise are 6 feet. So we either build levees or move people to higher ground. Why are we still wringing our hands and trying to convince every last person to agree? I want to see a plan and then progress on building levees.
Keep in mind levees don't make a lick of difference if the land underneath is porous and the water table rises.
This is the issue with Miami - It would be like building a levee on a sponge floating in a bowl of water. Won't help.
"That can have a huge impact."
What, when and where are these huge impacts? Since we don't know these slightly important details, what should be done besides adaptation that won't involve "disassembling capitalism" and creating a worldwide all-powerful regulatory authority? Humans are really good at adaptation.
II'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the temperature is supposed to be.
That's fairly easy, but there are two answers:
1. If large scale exploitation of fossil fuels had not occurred in the 19th -21st centuries the global mean temperature calculated according to the Hadcrut4 methodology and averaged over a decade or so would probably have been between about 0.7 and 1.1 kelvins below the average for the last decade (ie about 287 rather than 288 Kelvins).
2. More tentative -- if agriculture had not been widespread over the last 10000 or so years, global temperature might be significantly colder as we headed down towards another ice age.
That's simply not true given the fact that all temperature boyue are calibrated to match those taken by the thermometers located in the outtakes of ships by 2/10ths of a degree. Not to mention, if you look at and compare giss charts from 1980, 1987, 2007, 2010, and 2015, they all tell a 'very inflated' stories.
Also you might want to stop linking to an alarmist blog showing uncited charts.
Post the direct link to the journal or the official story/source or don't post at all.
Your patten also catches scientists who were being cautious and conservative to start with, so where there is uncertainty they adopt the option that gives the least radical results, the smallest anomaly, etc.
Then as the data and the methodologies improve and the uncertainties are resolved the results naturally become MORE surprising.
Now I'm seeing 2 versions of supposedly the same data,
Can any one tell me which is the true one?
do the adjustments increase the trend or lower it?
Some one is lying some where?
My Bet would be door number 3, The original data is no longer available (lost,destroyed, something else, I seem to remember at one point climate scientists in the UK (hadcrut) saying they couldn't archive the unadjusted data because they couldn't afford the funding to buy a £100 hard disk to store it on , which seems pretty fucking stupid!!!
you do understand that food production has gone up? not down.
(even accounting for the idiocy of converting food into fuel!!)
and natural processes have been removing co2 from the atmosphere for millions of years!!!.
plants stop photosynthesis below a certain point (which we are getting closer too.), then everything that relies upon plants for food starve!.
Present estimates that us burning some stuff has actually put that point back by 100,000 years.
And your so wrong, they do not use physics, they use a mathematical model with tuned parameters to attempt to simulate approximations, if they use physics, them each and every run would produce the same output.
Learn something about simulations and computing before spouting shit!
nope, they do not do calibration, calibration would be matching against a known true base value (which they do not have!!)
what they do is look at the data, with statistical computing and try to derive "possible" deviations from what they expect to be true, then apply adjustments across the whole of the data to try to bring it into agreement, a lot depends on what you "BELIEVE" the data "SHOULD" be!!!.
Basically biased guessing! (They don't like to admit it but that's the way it works!!!)
Also, imagine you build levees along the entire coastline. You can't leave gaps for the rivers, or the sea will flow in through them.
Does that mean that eventually, due to rain, the entire country will be a huge swimming pool?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
For now that's what the oceans are doing, hence sea temperature rises and acidification.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That certainly would suggest BS somewhere, but you need to look carefully to decide where. Suppose someone is pushing the narrative, "Scientists are faking the data for political reasons." What do you think that person will do? Whenever a correction causes the amount of warming to increase, they'll make a big deal about it and say, "See? There's another example of them faking the data!" And whenever a correction causes the amount of warming to decrease, they won't say a word about it because it doesn't fit with their narrative.
So if you want to apply that rule, you need to make sure you actually know every correction that's been applied, not just the ones someone with an agenda told you about.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Except for the fact that in the 1970s mainstream scientists were predicting a resumption of glaciation. Then they changed to global warming. Next year after el-nino is done and la-nina kicks in the planet will show cooling so all bets to be settled after 2017 will have winners on the cooling side. This el-nino has lead to a lot of bets being settled in favour of warmer bets. Making bets on short term windows like 5 years is kind of silly.You expose yourself to fluctuations both ways caused by the el-nino/la-nina cycles.
That doesn't mean that CO2 is controlling the climate. In case you missed it, the largest effect on short term climate is the el-nino/la-nina and the long term is regulated by the PDO/AMO and solar cycles.
It would be interesting to see what temperature dataset the bets were based on. The US CRN, RSS & UAH all show 2015 as 3rd warmest in the instrumental record (~150 years).
The reproduction rate of the U.S. (2.2 births per woman) is higher than that of Asia (1.8 births per woman). So lets nuke the U.S. first!
In recent history they have to match up with the US CRN or they become totally useless and ignored. For the last 10 years the US CRN has had a great setup at pristine locations and if the US HCN didn't match it they would be ignored. So they have to be honest about recent data but they can, and do, cool the past.
In the Permian there was a 30 million year period with low CO2. Currently we are in a 20 million year period of low CO2. In between there was 250 million years with CO2 over 1000 PPM and life flourished. Greater variety and diversity of plant and animal life (with a few asteroids thinning the herds). So making a big deal over CO2 being higher that it has been in the last million years is nonsense.
If anything CO2 is too low. At 150 PPM plant life above the oceans stops. That would be an extinction level event for most land animals. During the last glaciation we were within 10% of not having this discussion. CO2 went down to about 170 PPM. That is way too close and if you artificially limit it to so silly "pre-industrial" level of 270 PPM then you are setting up another possible extinction level event during the next glaciation.
Another attack from the cowardly moderators!
How we deal with climate change will be determined by the people we elect, unless you have some magical formula. Betting on the those results is not offtopic! Asshole!
First of all, the Netherlands don't have an ocean coast line, the sea north of the Netherlands is the Northern Sea. It's a very shallow sea, often less than 100 feet deep. One result is that the height difference between the tides is much higher than that of an ocean, as with each tide, huge amounts of water come in from the Atlantic, and leave the Northern Sea again. Like waves coming in at the shore, which get higher and higher until they break down, this water coming from the deep into a shallow sea will increase the amplitude of the flooding. The height difference can reach 15 feet and more. This creates a wide stripe of ground along the coast, which is covered by sea water during the High Tide and falls dry during the Low Tide. This stripe can be at places several miles wide. It's a unique feature you don't find very often. At most other places, the height difference between the tides is less than three feet, less than the expected rise in sea levels.
With this large height difference, rivers will always flow to the sea during the low tide, and the sea water will flow into the land at the high tide. If you build a levee at the mound of the river, you can stop the sea water coming in during the high tide by simply closing a gate in the levee, and you open it at the low tide to let the river flow into the sea. With a height difference of 15 feet, this would still work, if sea levels rise 6 feet, there are still 9 feet left for this mechanism to work. At an ocean coast, you don't have this effect. If the sea level rises 6 feet, rivers won't flow into the sea during the low tide, as the water level of the river is still 3 feet below sea level. You would have to install big pumping stations at the river mounds to pump the water out of the rivers and into the sea. (Even the Netherlands have a large amount of pumps along the coast, the famous wind mills of the Netherlands were mostly build to power those pumps during the Middle Age.)
Second: The coastal line of the Netherlands is not that long. It's about 200 mls from the northernmost point to the southernmost. It has only a few large rivers whose banks also have to be protected by levees. The network of levees was constructed over thousand years. For a country with 16,000 square miles of area, this is manageable. It is not manageable for countries with much longer coastal lines like Florida, with less dry land area like most of the island states, or with a vast network of rivers like Bangladesh.
Here's how to tell the difference between a true skeptic and a conspiracy theorist. A true skeptic would actually look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup) then admit that Layzej and other scientists are right. In contrast, a conspiracy theorist won't click on links even though he specifically asked for them, and certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.
Food production grows because of improves techniques. Take away the water, ands it doesn't matter how advanced your agriculture isz you won't grow a damned thing.
A permanent and precipitous drop in rainfall in the Midwest will turn it into a semi arid region, perhaps a suitable for grazing, but worthless for high yield crops, or most crops of any kind.
Queue the "we'll just redirect all the rivers", which assumes those using the rivers won't fight back, and that many river systems won't be disrupted by the same climactic changes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I suggest you read these FAQs on climate models before you continue.
FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models -- Part II
Not everything in climate models is physics based. Some things have to be parameterized because their scale doesn't fit the scale of the model. Different climate model runs start with slight variations in their starting points and run on 20 to 30 minute time steps to model chaotic weather within them so the output varies.
Looks like your mate who runs that blog has updated it since you read it, to the effect that he no longer claims that NOAA thinks that 1997 was warmer than 2015 - and grudgingly admits that he misread the material. Apparently, this is NOAA's fault for not making the material clear enough for a numpty to understand.
High-school physics lessons? I guess you didn't attend.
Wrong AGAIN!
Can't you guys get anything right?
"nope, they do not do calibration, calibration would be matching against a known true base value (which they do not have!!)"
Well actually they do when it comes to temperature buoy....
The way NOAA does it is rather sinister since they 'calibrate' the buoy to match the thermal outtakes of ship engines (thus corrupting the data with the thermal heat of the engines) upwards (not downwards) by 2/10ths of a degree since that is initially where all sea surface temperatures were initially measured.
Look you....It is IMPOSSIBLE to measure the temperature of a Very Large Dynamic Inhomogeneous Three Dimensional Object like a Planet. You are delusional when you claim you can.
The temperature varies from point to point due to all the dynamic and complex processes which are all interrelated to each other.
Global warming is just a fake so people like you and your cronies can suck money out of hard working people and siphon a percentage of it it into their own pockets.
Corrupt and delusional people like you with vested interests is what makes the world a stinking place.
" certainly won't admit he was wrong even though NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do."
Completely false.
Go and compare the charts from 1980 and everything between until now, which is the latest fabricated nonsense that you're linking to.
Listen carefully, everything is relative to the timeline in which you work.
If you start at 16000 thousand years ago, the temperature trend is a steady upward trend in warming. (which makes sense since we're nearing the end of an inter-glacial period)
If you start 2000 years ago, the trend is downwards.
But if you start a 'century' ago, it's a sharp increase since it starts at the mid upward tick of the Little Ice Age....
However, If you start 4000 years ago, just before the 'axis shift' (which created the worlds largest desert aka the Sahara), you'll see an even sharper uptick in the temperature trend in comparison today.
So none of this is unprecedented and like it or not, natural variability is more pronounced in the 'geologic record' (spanning billions of years) than the 'historical record' (spanning either from 1970 or the end of the 20th century).
Basically the more narrow your time frame becomes, the more extreme the temperature trend becomes.
If you can't comprehend that simple little fact, then you're lost.
"So if you want to apply that rule, you need to make sure you actually know every correction that's been applied, not just the ones someone with an agenda told you about."
The problem is, NOAA is the gatekeepers to the raw data and they absolutely refuse to release it even after several FOIA requests by our Senate.
If they're so sure about they're so-called charts and models, then why all of the secrecy around which sources of data they used in generating everything?
I mean, the CAGW hypothesis has not been elevated to theory so why are policies being based upon something that hasn't been validated?
Completely false? Again, look at the direct link to the journal showing those "massive adjustments" made by Karl et al. 2015 in Fig 2(b) (backup). Notice that the green line marked "without corrections" shows less global surface warming over the last century than the black line marked "with corrections"? If not, just fit a trend to each dataset and notice that the green "without corrections" trend line has a steeper slope.
Why would NOAA "fabricate" corrections that result in less surface warming? If you really think they're "fabricating nonsense" then just use the publicly available raw data... which show more global surface warming over the last century.
Or if you're just trolling, keep trying to change the subject away from the simple fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.
CORRECTION: Notice that the green line marked "without corrections" shows MORE global surface warming over the last century than the black line marked "with corrections"?
Yeah, I noticed, nw go look at NOAA's previous adjustments from 1980 until now.
FYI, you're the ones trying to prove that man-made global warming is not just a hypothesis but a theory, so it shouldn't be that hard to bring up the historical data from yesteryears to back up your argument.
That's the graph you asked for. The direct link to the journal, remember? Of course, once you got it you're changing the subject. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) shows the current adjustments and the "historical data from yesteryears". Fig 2(a) (backup) shows the previous adjustments, in case that will finally satisfy your goal post moving. Which it probably won't.
No, here I'm only "trying to prove" that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do. Which Fig 2 clearly proves. After talking with Sky Dragon Slayers like "Jane Q. Public" aka Lonny Eachus, it's clear that there's no point in trying to prove anything more complicated to internet trolls. (There's generally no point in trying to have any kind of discussion with them, except to spare others that pain.)
Bringing up historical data is the whole point of the "without corrections" line in Fig 2(b) because it shows the "historical data from yesteryears". As I said, those data are publicly available. If you don't know where to get them, just ask for help politely and I'll consider helping you. But I've got very little patience for people like Jane/Lonny who just keep trying to change the subject and seem to get off on accusing scientists of fraud while asking me to volunteer my time to help them refine their libelous accusations.
You seem to not understand that the article to which you're referencing is the reason why everyone is upset. They don't list which version of the data set they're referencing nor do they explain how they made the adjustments. If fact, they're flat out refusing to reveal how they made the adjustments and are telling us to just take their word for it.
I understand the article I referenced is the exact article demanded by the (other?) AC who demanded a "direct link to the journal". The rest of your rant is also nonsense. If you'd actually tried, you'd find that they explained how they made the adjustments and made all the data public. The reason "everyone" you see on these conspiracy theory websites are upset is that they're conspiracy theorists who always manufacture reasons to be upset. Reasons which apparently can't be published anywhere but at conspiracy theory websites, because they supposedly reveal the massive conspiracy made up of NOAA, NASA, the US NAS, AGU, AIP, APS, AMS, ASA, etc.
No. Stop being paranoid. Look at the chart. https://climatecrock.files.wor... The past is substantially warmed by the corrections. The trend is REDUCED by the adjustments.
Yeah, and NOAA's surface dataset is so incredibly broken (75% of the temperature sensors have gone offline since 2010 and many if not most of them are located within urban heat islands) they had to double the warming trend by lowering the temperatures pre-hiatus and jacking them up post-hiatus so that it would fit the alarmist narrative.
yeah yeah, we know, it's all a conspiracy to maintain the scientists' vast wealth and power.
bookmark this guy's post for reference the next time you read a denialist's post 'Nobody denies its warming, just that the cause might not be anthropogenic"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Here's a quick bullshit detector I've learned to use when dealing with science "revisions". Note that this has nothing to do with global warming, I developed this tool on unrelated topics. The tool is: "does the revision only go one way? Does it never go the other way? Does it support the politics of the person claiming it? If so then it's likely bullshit."
Apply that test and does it pass?
that's great, if you live in a world where scientific results "support the politics" of people. AGW was a perfectly established theory that explained the difference in surface temp between the earth and the moon for over 100 years before it became political, by the decision of the Koch brothers. http://www.newyorker.com/news/...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
"Pickering concludes, 'What Evans apparently doesn't realize is that because of the thermal inertia of the oceans, within narrow bounds we can already predict what global temperatures will be in 2019, 2024, and 2029...' "
A major part of science is the ability to verify a theory by independently repeatable experiments and observations. Predicting the future is not "science". You can create a predictive model by retro-fitting current observations to past data, looking at trends and making certain assumptions, but it's still only a model. Such a model can be used, but it should never be "believed". That's the problem with the global warming *cough* "Climate Change" alarmists. They honestly think they KNOW what global temperatures are going to be over the next several decades based on their climate models. The same types of models from decades ago made all sorts of dire predictions that never came to fruition and the same is true of today's models.
look up "curve fitting" and "scientific model" and see if you can understand the difference.
then see if you can wrap your head around the fact that every scientific theory, hypothesis, etc. is a model. F=MA is a model of the kinetics of objects, based on past observations. If you don't feel it predicts future behavior of objects, that's your prerogative, but you can't say it's just curve fitting with no attempt to understand the underlying mechanism.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
global warming *cough* "Climate Change"
The warming of the earth causes the climate to change. Why do the nutjobs think they've stumbled on a deep conspiracy when they discover two different terms for different aspects of the same thing?
the fun part is hearing them rant about "gullible warmists" while they solemnly intone "when it stopped warming they changed the name to climate change from global warming" as they rant about the evil IPCC, and then asking them if they know what the CC in IPCC has stood for for the past 30 years.
denialists will believe anything fed to them by an Approved Authority, no questions asked.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Do you really not know, or are you pretending not to understand? I'm not sure which is worse, ignorance or deliberate lies.
It used to be called "global warming". But, this term got discredited due to scientists abusing science in order to push a left-wing agenda. So, they rebranded as "climate change". It's the same as how "liberals" rebranded as "progressives". Old wine in new bottles. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Deep conspiracy? Why yes there is. It's not some crazy James Bond oval table with liberals cackling and stroking white cats. But there is indeed a general agreement, you might call it a hivemind, that does want to use global warming, I'm sorry climate change, to enact radical left-wing policies and use the excuse of global warming, I'm sorry again climate change, to get them passed without recourse to voting or any of that old-fashioned 20th century white people stuff.
and when did it get 'rebranded as "climate change"'? Was this before or after the establishment of the IPCC in 1988? or was it originally named the IPGW and they changed the name and only rightwingers noticed?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
But even we can read a question.
Personally I find the question of "is Trump serious, or is he a stalking-horse?" much more interesting than by how much Clinton is going to win.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I'm not quite sure which model you're following, but I think you'll find that the projections are more like 2m (6ft) rise by the end of this century (2100), but with continuing rises after that as the heat works it's way deeper into the ocean.
A small part of the sea level rise comes from melting ice, but MOST of the rise comes from the thermal expansion of water as the heat conducts (*) down into the ocean depths. Then sea level may temporarily subside, before beginning to rise again (because most ocean depths greater than a couple of km are below 4degC, where the density of water is at a maximum ; as that water warms up, it will actually contract until it passes 4degC).
(*) We may already be committed to shutting down the thermohaline density convection circuit, which is more efficient at moving heat around than conduction. It's not clear.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Will always be lost.
The variation caused by Maunder minima is measurable but too small to push things around much.
In particular it's not enough to account for the little ice age (which was regional anyway, not global). Current thinking is that it was mostly caused by volcanic eruptions but there's a possibility that gulf stream disturbances triggered by northwest atlantic freshwater incursions might have come into play.
A Maunder minimum at the moment would gain some extra years delay dealing with global warming but the reality is that the 2 degree target is already blown and we're pretty much fucked.
Apart from the sea level rises (which take decades to be noticed) a more pressing issue is that almost every CO2 spike in the geological record has an accompanying global anoxic oceanic event (the last one is what gave us most of the oil fields being exploited) and an accompanying dieoff of large terrestrial/aquatic animals. It's hard to put the timings together on "thousands" let alone "hundreds" of years from fossils so it's hard to tell how close those events have happened in the past, but there're already indications of deepwater dead zones starting to spread.
It may well be that sea level rises won't matter because there won't be enough people left around to notice them.
I have no intention of voting for Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't suggest to anyone to do so either. She's got experience, but doesn't look like she'll do anything useful with it.
In fact, I really have no idea who I *will* vote for.
I'm simply stating what seems to be the case even now.
Sanders has some interesting play in small states, but I still don't know if he has play where it counts, especially where the Democratic machine is strongest. Remember, he's a small state politician, so he already speaks the language for states like New Hampshire and Iowa. It's no surprise he's doing well there.
Not voting for Sanders either. I think we need someone who knows how to make the government work more efficiently, not someone looking for a reason to accumulate more tax money, even if it is supposedly from the "rich". I won't complain too bitterly about single payer health care, of course. I have no children and it probably won't go broke before I die, but I can't in good conscience advocate it as a good practice for the US even if I would benefit from it while it works.
As for the Republicans, no Republican currently in the race has a prayer at winning at the general election. Trump fixed that, although they barely needed the "help". Trump will turn that into a certainty if *he* wins because he's a joke in a national election. But even if he doesn't, the party is putting up a bunch of Romneys and Cruz. The "Romneys" would put up the best fight, but like the actual Romney, they have no chance because they're uninspiring and the demographics are still against them. Romney was not so far away in numbers, but that percent might have well have been the Grand Canyon because the Dems have the various minority groups in a lock and are giving away more goodies for the independents. The Republicans have nothing to buy votes with except stuff that plays to angry white people.
Cruz is in the same place as Trump, a portion of angry Republicans who are just splitting up an already losing percentage. Hopefully, if the Republicans lose this time around, they get the notion of out how to actually run someone who can win a general election. Not holding my breath however.
I agree, whale oil and kerosene will always power America!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You should never call global warming "anthropomorphic". It hates that. XD
Meanwhile, back in reality, NOAA provides the raw data right on their web site: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
" If you'd actually tried, you'd find that they explained how they made the adjustments and made all the data public."
Ok, then point out the section that reveals where and how they made the adjustments because as far as everyone else is concerned, they 'adjusted the raw data' before making their new adjustments.
Care to point out 'which version' of the raw data they used in this one...because they don't reveal it.
Listen...
You're the one trying to prove the CAWG hypothesis, so it shouldn't be that hard for you to find the raw data that they use with each press release over the years.
And your reduction fallacies are rather juvenile, grow the fuck up kid.
Barrett, Earl W. (1971). "Climate Change." (Letter) Science 171: 983.
Here's one from 1968:
Bryson, Reid A. (1968). "'All Other Factors Being Constant...' a Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climate Change." Weatherwise 21: 56-61ff.
Here's one from 1955:
Crary, A. P., et al. (1955). "Evidences of Climate Change from Ice Island Studies." Science 122: 1171-73.
They had great foresight to plant this seed in 1933:
Davis, William Morris (1933). "Climate Changes and the Last Glacial Period." Science Suppl., 10 March, p. 9.
But 1933 had nothing on 1914:
Huntington, Ellsworth (1914). "The Solar Hypothesis of Climate Changes." Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 25: 477-590
No. Once again, here I'm only "trying to prove" that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) clearly show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do. Which Fig 2 clearly proves. After talking with Sky Dragon Slayers like "Jane Q. Public" aka Lonny Eachus, it's clear that there's no point in trying to prove anything more complicated to internet trolls. (There's generally no point in trying to have any kind of discussion with them, except to spare others that pain.)
Again, if you don't know where to get these data, just ask for help politely and I'll consider helping you. But I've got very little patience for people like Jane/Lonny who just keep trying to change the subject and seem to get off on accusing scientists of fraud while asking me to volunteer my time to help them refine their libelous accusations.
Telling me to "grow the fuck up kid" doesn't qualify as asking for help politely.
So you've not read the IPCC reports. That is a rather large condemnation of your position, as you are railing against something that exists only in your mind. Your argument is extremely childish.
See just how easily you are misinformed? If you actually performed the required due diligence before accepting something you wish was true as something that actually is true, you wouldn't be on slashdot parroting falsehoods and making a fool of yourself. I wonder what else you think is true but isn't? If you have such low standards for accepting random claims as fact, it makes one wonder.
So your solution is to move all the massive coastal cities? Billions of people will just up and move? I don't even...
Those cities stopping functioning won't be the end of the world, but it would be the end of our world. The vast majority of the world's wealth resides in those cities, and they form the underpinnings of the global economy. They require the masses of workers who will have to be moved with them. It's not just a case of the sea rising slowly and encroaching on them, but of the increase in storm surges which will push any flood defence systems to their limits, as we have already seen happen (even in first world countries).
Or you could read the literature on this subject which has been around for ages, goes into much further depth than your guesses, and actually outlines workable solutions for abating this issue.
Anyone who asks politely would be given this link to NOAA's 2015 response to all those accusations. As you can see, the data in Karl et al. 2015 are public, and all the AC's accusations were prebunked last year after another conspiracy theorist belched them out. Of course, that didn't matter because conspiracy theorists don't seem interested in facts. All they seem to want to do is baselessly accuse scientists of fraud...