Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
Well, the wordplay is correct. You could also say that the mobile market is fragmented between iOS and Android, yet we call that differentiation and innovation.
After all - we could create a government mandate that all computers have to be x86 based - that would've stopped a lot of fragmentation. Would it have created a better world?
Because there is a point where you don't have enough food and water to keep people alive.
Maybe. Why do you believe we're anywhere near that point?
That is a horribly misleading statement.
First, saying the growth rate has slowed is not at all the same as saying we have a negative growth rate. Therefore your claim that we're unlikely to hit 10 billion is entirely unfounded.
It's neither misleading nor unfounded. The UN median population projection is for us to never hit 10 billion. You know, based on actual data.
Second, the only reason it's been "declining for decades" is because decades ago we had a massive population boom.
No, please go watch the supplied video which contains, again, actual data.
What's your agenda, and why do you post lies on the intarnetz?
Feel free to watch the link I gave you, and understand that we're already on a growth limiting curve. There is no "population explosion". The exponential is declining. You can stop worrying.
(Pollution was an issue centuries ago in London as well, as it is in wood stoves in India today. Technological development does wonders for air quality)
Why do you claim that over population is a huge problem? The rate of human population growth has been declining for decades. It currently seems as we'll never even hit 10 billion before we drop in total numbers.
If there was a point to your message feel free to elaborate. The warming we've seen since the LIA is far from unprecedented in history. I'm surprised you don't know this, it's not a contested fact.
That does not explain the sudden increase in temperature since the industrial revolution.
What sudden increase is that? Our coming out of the Little Ice Age is not more sudden or a change larger in temperature than any number of historic climate shifts.
You do remember that we weren't talking about whether ice is melting or not, but whether "because every year the ice sheet is melting faster then predicted." as the GP claimed?
That's why the quote I selected was:
Although recent reports of large and increasing rates of mass loss with time from GRACE-based studies cite agreement with IOM results, our evaluation does not support that conclusion.
Although recent reports of large and increasing rates of mass loss with time from GRACE-based studies cite agreement with IOM results, our evaluation does not support that conclusion.
The two are closely correlated in the Antartic. Feel free to show non-model datasets that would support the GP claim, and detail what is meant with "the ice sheet" [singular?].
Actual science disagrees with you. UHI effects are very real, the discussion is whether we're able to manipulate the data so as to still being able to see what the true temperature rise is.
We have consistently discovered that the IPCC's reports on GW are too conservative. Everything is happening faster than the "alarmists" have been predicting.
FYI:
In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios.
None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
Miners are moving from GPUs to FPGAs right now, just as they went from CPUs to GPUs early last year. Thus, for lead adopters the electricity cost of mining a bitcoin is a lot less than its current value on the market.
The next step, if Bitcoin survives, is most likely sASIC and then ASIC.
And yet he produced no evidence of these atrocities.
Really?
Wow. You must get your information from completely different places than I do.
"While this week marks the one-year anniversary since the US formally ended military operations in Iraq, a diplomatic cable exposed by WikiLeaks unearths a gruesome incident in which Americans handcuffed and executed children during a 2006 raid.
An uncensored diplomatic cable released through WikIleaks last week shows that not only did US troops brutally execute 11 Iraqis during an incident in March of 2006, but they then ordered in an airstrike to destroy the evidence of their wrongdoing."
"The cable shows that the UN official was able to receive information from the autopsy of those killed, which revealed that each person in the house during the raid was handcuffed and shot in the head, including five children under the age of 5 years old and four women, one in her 70s."
I'm typing on one. I'm quite sure you're not. Don't let fanboyism stand in between you and what's an amazing piece of hardware.
(Its SSD made me go and switch out the hard drives in all my other computers to SSDs as well since they were suddenly slower than the "low spec" MBA - last years model)
No one who's ever held and used an 11" Macbook Air would claim it's "bigger" and "weighs more" than, uh, just about anything. Heck, you can keep it in an iPad cover.
To be blunt, the 11" MBA is the perfect netbook. Pricey, sure, but it's a full blown (fast!!) computer in an iPad-sized casing.
The prediction could be a fluke, but when predictions turn out to be valid (if this one does) maybe other parts of the paper should be scrutinized more closely as well.
Slashdot Mirror
When citing someone, go to the source:
Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#disagreement
Well, the wordplay is correct. You could also say that the mobile market is fragmented between iOS and Android, yet we call that differentiation and innovation.
After all - we could create a government mandate that all computers have to be x86 based - that would've stopped a lot of fragmentation. Would it have created a better world?
Because there is a point where you don't have enough food and water to keep people alive.
Maybe. Why do you believe we're anywhere near that point?
That is a horribly misleading statement.
First, saying the growth rate has slowed is not at all the same as saying we have a negative growth rate. Therefore your claim that we're unlikely to hit 10 billion is entirely unfounded.
It's neither misleading nor unfounded. The UN median population projection is for us to never hit 10 billion. You know, based on actual data.
Second, the only reason it's been "declining for decades" is because decades ago we had a massive population boom.
No, please go watch the supplied video which contains, again, actual data.
What's your agenda, and why do you post lies on the intarnetz?
Feel free to watch the link I gave you, and understand that we're already on a growth limiting curve. There is no "population explosion". The exponential is declining. You can stop worrying.
(Pollution was an issue centuries ago in London as well, as it is in wood stoves in India today. Technological development does wonders for air quality)
Why do you claim that over population is a huge problem? The rate of human population growth has been declining for decades. It currently seems as we'll never even hit 10 billion before we drop in total numbers.
I recommend Hans Rosling on the subject: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html
So, no citation. I suspected as much. It's a popular myth, but being popular does not make it true.
If there was a point to your message feel free to elaborate. The warming we've seen since the LIA is far from unprecedented in history. I'm surprised you don't know this, it's not a contested fact.
[citation needed]
Last time I checked, it's the AGW proponents - not the skeptics - that get big paychecks. Have you actually verified your statement?
Example: James Hansen of NASA collecting over a million dollars in personal income for work he's already been paid for with his public salary
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
That does not explain the sudden increase in temperature since the industrial revolution.
What sudden increase is that? Our coming out of the Little Ice Age is not more sudden or a change larger in temperature than any number of historic climate shifts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
You seriously believe there is a lot of sea ice but none over land? :) You physics denier.
Extreme weather events over 2000 years:
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
Can you pick out the ones caused by cooling and warming, and show how today is different?
You do remember that we weren't talking about whether ice is melting or not, but whether "because every year the ice sheet is melting faster then predicted." as the GP claimed?
That's why the quote I selected was:
Although recent reports of large and increasing rates of mass loss with time from GRACE-based studies cite agreement with IOM results, our evaluation does not support that conclusion.
Let's say the jury is still out on that one.
Although recent reports of large and increasing rates of mass loss with time from GRACE-based studies cite agreement with IOM results, our evaluation does not support that conclusion.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9k58637p80534284/
The two are closely correlated in the Antartic. Feel free to show non-model datasets that would support the GP claim, and detail what is meant with "the ice sheet" [singular?].
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/MassBalance.pdf
Actual science disagrees with you. UHI effects are very real, the discussion is whether we're able to manipulate the data so as to still being able to see what the true temperature rise is.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=24538066
because every year the ice sheet is melting faster then predicted.
Since that's not even remotely true, why did you post it?
Antarctic, above normal: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Arctic, 2011 not even near being lower than the last few years: http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Unfortunately, no. Antarctic ice coverage is above normal: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
~
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-17/house-intelligence-panel-probing-chinese-phone-companies-in-u-s-.html
We have consistently discovered that the IPCC's reports on GW are too conservative. Everything is happening faster than the "alarmists" have been predicting.
FYI:
In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios.
None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
- Kevin Trenberth, IPCC lead author 2001 and 2007
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html
sASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_ASIC_platform
Miners are moving from GPUs to FPGAs right now, just as they went from CPUs to GPUs early last year. Thus, for lead adopters the electricity cost of mining a bitcoin is a lot less than its current value on the market.
The next step, if Bitcoin survives, is most likely sASIC and then ASIC.
And yet he produced no evidence of these atrocities.
Really?
Wow. You must get your information from completely different places than I do.
"While this week marks the one-year anniversary since the US formally ended military operations in Iraq, a diplomatic cable exposed by WikiLeaks unearths a gruesome incident in which Americans handcuffed and executed children during a 2006 raid.
An uncensored diplomatic cable released through WikIleaks last week shows that not only did US troops brutally execute 11 Iraqis during an incident in March of 2006, but they then ordered in an airstrike to destroy the evidence of their wrongdoing."
"The cable shows that the UN official was able to receive information from the autopsy of those killed, which revealed that each person in the house during the raid was handcuffed and shot in the head, including five children under the age of 5 years old and four women, one in her 70s."
http://rt.com/usa/news/wikileaks-iraq-children-killed/
I'm typing on one. I'm quite sure you're not. Don't let fanboyism stand in between you and what's an amazing piece of hardware.
(Its SSD made me go and switch out the hard drives in all my other computers to SSDs as well since they were suddenly slower than the "low spec" MBA - last years model)
No one who's ever held and used an 11" Macbook Air would claim it's "bigger" and "weighs more" than, uh, just about anything. Heck, you can keep it in an iPad cover.
To be blunt, the 11" MBA is the perfect netbook. Pricey, sure, but it's a full blown (fast!!) computer in an iPad-sized casing.
The prediction could be a fluke, but when predictions turn out to be valid (if this one does) maybe other parts of the paper should be scrutinized more closely as well.