"We show that the mathematical proof of the four color theorem yields a perfect interpretation of the Standard Model of particle physics. [...] giving us a Grand Unified Theory." [---] "we present our prediction of the Higgs boson mass = 125.992 GeV, as a direct consequence of the proof of the four color theorem." (2009-12-28)
Thanks for the link, I really enjoyed their approach.
When all power comes from wind, wind will produce no CO2 at all.
But that's impossible, since the energy generation from wind mills must be matched in down/up cycles with other energy producing means that can ramp up and down quickly.
Interesting hypothesis and not something I would immediately consider to be true without citation. I'm Swedish though, maybe there are small differences between countries.
“The weather gods might be sending us a message here,” joked Salwa Dallalah, the UN’s head organiser for the conference.
“Delegates may find themselves having to carry umbrellas, but we can’t do anything about the weather. I am not a scientist, but Durban people have told me that it’s unusually cold. It will be a pity if the rainy weather continues, especially because many Europeans and Americans will come for COP17 expecting lovely summer weather,” she said.
Coral reefs are bleached by warm and/or cold water, fully natural events from which they rebuild quickly. The pH level varies over the earth's oceans by orders of magnitude more than the change we think we might've seen over the last few centuries.
Of course it would take a thousand years or more for all of that ice to melt
I think it's a good idea to ask the Vikings what their views are on how to make sure the Earth will be in a good condition for the World of Warcraft generation, don't you?
(Read: We might have opinions on what's good for humanity a few decades down the road, at most, but we don't have a clue what "we" are or how we are living in even a century)
I'm quite sure Anthony takes great care in supporting his statements, as do most others who post on his blog. I'm also quite sure Fall et al. 2011 has been released, and if I recall correctly additional papers are in the pipelines.
(As an example, the BEST papers have been talked about quite a lot without having been published either)
I had a reason for asking you to support your claims. You seldom do.
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.
I'm sorry, but you claiming that I don't does not make it so:) On the contrary, I'm slightly surprised you're defending something that is _provably_ not true.
Yes, I hope that was clear from my post as well. Not only is that how you do publications (I myself create my talks that way) but it's also - even though we pretend it isn't sometimes - also how we do research.
The important part is being able to let go of directions that fail to verify.
The proxy also diverges centuries earlier (pre 1550), which casts doubt on it possibly having being cherry picked and considered good only when for those time periods where it was deemed suitable.
it's the speed at which it is happening. It's way faster than any natural warming or cooling that we've experienced - those took at least centuries to significantly change climate. We're looking at decades
The Old Egyptian Kingdom fell because of very rapid climate change that happened in just a few decades:
The fact that our historical proxies have low granularity does not in any way suggest that swift changes happened before - only that it's hard to detect them with the proxies we use.
I'm quite sure he showed that no model modelled ENSO well - but he often uses animated gifs for that. Tamino often seems to overlook it anyway.
[...] the vast majority of the readers here understand that a model mean would average out any multidecadal variations in the individual model runs, if any existed.
When one of the models _disagree_ with the others, you have a problem. Using them as approximations knowing that you could, although the work would be immense, do the calculations from the ground up is something completely different.
(And since one of my degrees is as a Mechanical Engineer the answer to your example is that yes, that could be done)
Slashdot Mirror
"We show that the mathematical proof of the four color theorem yields a perfect interpretation of the Standard Model of particle physics. [...] giving us a Grand Unified Theory." [---] "we present our prediction of the Higgs boson mass = 125.992 GeV, as a direct consequence of the proof of the four color theorem." (2009-12-28)
Thanks for the link, I really enjoyed their approach.
You're welcome.
http://unlockbootloader.sonyericsson.com/
That was my point, yes.
When all power comes from wind, wind will produce no CO2 at all.
But that's impossible, since the energy generation from wind mills must be matched in down/up cycles with other energy producing means that can ramp up and down quickly.
Interesting hypothesis and not something I would immediately consider to be true without citation. I'm Swedish though, maybe there are small differences between countries.
You have no right to full-text searches of books
Why not?
“The weather gods might be sending us a message here,” joked Salwa Dallalah, the UN’s head organiser for the conference.
“Delegates may find themselves having to carry umbrellas, but we can’t do anything about the weather. I am not a scientist, but Durban people have told me that it’s unusually cold. It will be a pity if the rainy weather continues, especially because many Europeans and Americans will come for COP17 expecting lovely summer weather,” she said.
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/unusually-cold-weather-hits-durban-is-al-gore-in-town/
"Computable" does not mean "predict".
Coral reefs are bleached by warm and/or cold water, fully natural events from which they rebuild quickly. The pH level varies over the earth's oceans by orders of magnitude more than the change we think we might've seen over the last few centuries.
http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/news/featuredstories/jan10/flbleaching/
Of course it would take a thousand years or more for all of that ice to melt
I think it's a good idea to ask the Vikings what their views are on how to make sure the Earth will be in a good condition for the World of Warcraft generation, don't you?
(Read: We might have opinions on what's good for humanity a few decades down the road, at most, but we don't have a clue what "we" are or how we are living in even a century)
I'm quite sure Anthony takes great care in supporting his statements, as do most others who post on his blog. I'm also quite sure Fall et al. 2011 has been released, and if I recall correctly additional papers are in the pipelines.
(As an example, the BEST papers have been talked about quite a lot without having been published either)
I had a reason for asking you to support your claims. You seldom do.
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.php#disagreement
(If you don't immediately recognize BEST then please do before replying)
Why isn't it a good example?
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
Don't forget to look at the pretty graphis. That's actual data, not models.
[citation needed]
Why do you claim something that is provably wrong?
(example: Shell paying out money to James Hansen in 2009)
I'm sorry, but that's simply not how statistics work. It's not about being "80%" sure.
This article on the subject is good reading: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/335872/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong
I'm sorry, but you claiming that I don't does not make it so :) On the contrary, I'm slightly surprised you're defending something that is _provably_ not true.
(And used erroneous examples as arguments)
Again, one of your examples is not applicable to the topic at hand and the other one works just fine, although resource intense.
Any model that claims predictive SST powers over decades (that is, the future) without being able to model ENSO is non-scientific.
Yes, I hope that was clear from my post as well. Not only is that how you do publications (I myself create my talks that way) but it's also - even though we pretend it isn't sometimes - also how we do research.
The important part is being able to let go of directions that fail to verify.
The proxy also diverges centuries earlier (pre 1550), which casts doubt on it possibly having being cherry picked and considered good only when for those time periods where it was deemed suitable.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/
it's the speed at which it is happening. It's way faster than any natural warming or cooling that we've experienced - those took at least centuries to significantly change climate. We're looking at decades
The Old Egyptian Kingdom fell because of very rapid climate change that happened in just a few decades:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml
The fact that our historical proxies have low granularity does not in any way suggest that swift changes happened before - only that it's hard to detect them with the proxies we use.
I'm quite sure he showed that no model modelled ENSO well - but he often uses animated gifs for that. Tamino often seems to overlook it anyway.
[...] the vast majority of the readers here understand that a model mean would average out any multidecadal variations in the individual model runs, if any existed.
One such animated gif:
http://api.ning.com/files/sG7qq74yCI4jFA8dOaylk4cVqpGj8mjRDVV2iy-DQcGADEjobxEYxQbG6sS6T-*ilbe1IIgBsvGVbF7VQ3UKZeonG1-OnAG-/Animation1.gif
When one of the models _disagree_ with the others, you have a problem. Using them as approximations knowing that you could, although the work would be immense, do the calculations from the ground up is something completely different.
(And since one of my degrees is as a Mechanical Engineer the answer to your example is that yes, that could be done)
How do you know it's "bloody accurate"? (It's a serious question)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/CO2_diffusion_in_polar_ice_2008.pdf
Talk about shifting the goal posts
Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I seriously don't understand what it was the GP meant was confirmed.