The satellite data, however, has no such shadow over it. It's good, solid data...
You don't think satellite data is highly processed? Satellites can't measure atmospheric temperature directly at all. What they measure is microwave emissions from atmospheric gases (mostly O2 I think) as a proxy for temperature. Then taking into account the orbit (and possible decay of orbit), time of day and other factors they calculate a temperature for a rather nebulous area of the atmosphere (not the surface temperature). The good solid data we get from the satellites is a measure of microwave emissions, the rest is derived from that.
No, if Yellowstone is not ready to blow already I doubt the biggest atomic bomb we could make would set it off, almost certainly not one on the surface.
If all of the ice in the world melted there would be sea level rise of about 230 feet. Cool, my house would be on an island in the middle of Willamette Sound.
So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.
Both can be true. Arctic sea ice is declining, the Greenland ice sheet is declining, the West Antarctic ice sheet is declining and other glaciers around the world are on average declining. Antarctic sea ice has increased some and the East Antarctic ice sheet has maybe increased slightly overall but is losing some ice around the periphery. Neither has increased enough to offset the losses elsewhere. As the article points out all the ice melting on Antarctica is causing the top layer to be somewhat fresher than down below. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. Also a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor which means more is available for precipitation which also freshens the water when it falls on the ocean and can also mean increased snowfall over East Antarctica. For the Antarctic sea ice another factor is that the circumpolar winds have gotten stronger with blows the existing ice around which opens polynyas that subsequently refreeze increasing the ice area. All of that will continue until it gets so warm that there is no more ice or snow which is going to be a while.
The Western side of Antarctica has gained some mass but not enough to counteract the much more massive amount the Eastern side has lost. So, a much larger net negative.
I think you got that bass ackwards. It's Western Antarctica that is losing lots of ice and Eastern Antarctic that has had slight gains.
It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here.... I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
And yet it's still lower than any year in the satellite record before 2006. 2012 was so low it was outside of the 2 standard deviations range. 2013 and 2014 are near the bottom of the 2 sd range around the 1981-2010 average and back near the curve of declining Arctic sea ice. It will take another 5 years or so to see if there really is any recovery in Arctic sea ice but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Well, I was of that opinion before I ever read the story. The IS are fanatics of the worst kind who think everyone should be like them or they don't deserve to live.
I pretty much ignore all that political bullshit about who's funding what. I care mostly about the science. I have yet to find any reason to think there will be a major overturning of the primary points of current climate theory. There are a lot of details still to be nailed down but that increasing CO2 will cause the climate to warm and the cause of increasing CO2 is primarily human in origin is not in question.
I'm usually a pretty live and let live kind of guy but IS/ISIL/ISIS need to be treated like they're treating the people who don't agree with them, with no mercy. That is come down on them like a ton of bricks.
The ISP gets paid by their subscribers to provide a link to the internet. If the demands their subscribers place on them is too much then they should up their rates or charge by bandwidth usage.
It's a draft of a paper that isn't due to be finalized until November. In the context of "something must be done right now!" November is essentially equal to right now.
I don't know how they are financially dependent on that. Don't you think we'd be studying the climate regardless of the reality of global warming?
As far as being more interested in popular opinion than truth, that argument always baffles me. There is a reality to what they are studying that can't be changed by bias or wishful thinking. As scientists their reputations a dependent accurately reporting their findings. If they are found to have purposely fudged their research their careers are over and their reputation is mud. It's possible they are wrong but if they are they are honestly wrong.
LOL. There are some local climate contrarians (to put it nicely) here in Oregon who are convinced I'm a sock puppet for David Appell. I find it amusing and an indication of how easily they latch on to erroneous ideas.
It seems the alarmists are adamant that the agenda should be to curtail use of energy...
It's more about changing the way we produce energy, not curtailing it. Besides, who can be against reduction of energy use through using it more efficiently?
The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact it is possible to have flooding in the middle of a drought without ending the drought. They operate on different timescales.
A new, small VoIP service should have the right to demand its packets get the same priority as any other VoIP service period. The source shouldn't matter, just the type of packets.
I don't think QoS violates net neutrality. I don't have any problem with expediting certain kinds of packets that are time critical. The problem comes when you do it only for your own packets or the packets of people who have paid you to expedite them to the detriment of other producers of those kind of packets.
I would argue that stupidity is also being unwilling to acquire knowledge that runs counter to your ideology. The belief that ideology can trump reality is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
The satellite data, however, has no such shadow over it. It's good, solid data ...
You don't think satellite data is highly processed? Satellites can't measure atmospheric temperature directly at all. What they measure is microwave emissions from atmospheric gases (mostly O2 I think) as a proxy for temperature. Then taking into account the orbit (and possible decay of orbit), time of day and other factors they calculate a temperature for a rather nebulous area of the atmosphere (not the surface temperature). The good solid data we get from the satellites is a measure of microwave emissions, the rest is derived from that.
It's probably safe to say that most large carnivores, globally, wouldn't survive.
But they'd have a great time eating all of the herbivores that die of starvation ... at least until they run out.
No, if Yellowstone is not ready to blow already I doubt the biggest atomic bomb we could make would set it off, almost certainly not one on the surface.
If all of the ice in the world melted there would be sea level rise of about 230 feet. Cool, my house would be on an island in the middle of Willamette Sound.
Also, if it's colder in Antarctica ...
It doesn't have to be colder in Antarctica for more sea ice to form, just cold enough to still freeze the water.
So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.
Both can be true. Arctic sea ice is declining, the Greenland ice sheet is declining, the West Antarctic ice sheet is declining and other glaciers around the world are on average declining. Antarctic sea ice has increased some and the East Antarctic ice sheet has maybe increased slightly overall but is losing some ice around the periphery. Neither has increased enough to offset the losses elsewhere. As the article points out all the ice melting on Antarctica is causing the top layer to be somewhat fresher than down below. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. Also a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor which means more is available for precipitation which also freshens the water when it falls on the ocean and can also mean increased snowfall over East Antarctica. For the Antarctic sea ice another factor is that the circumpolar winds have gotten stronger with blows the existing ice around which opens polynyas that subsequently refreeze increasing the ice area. All of that will continue until it gets so warm that there is no more ice or snow which is going to be a while.
The Western side of Antarctica has gained some mass but not enough to counteract the much more massive amount the Eastern side has lost. So, a much larger net negative.
I think you got that bass ackwards. It's Western Antarctica that is losing lots of ice and Eastern Antarctic that has had slight gains.
I'm sympathetic to the rest of your argument.
More like it's 2 straight years that folks like you continue to misunderstand scientists expectations.
It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.
And yet it's still lower than any year in the satellite record before 2006. 2012 was so low it was outside of the 2 standard deviations range. 2013 and 2014 are near the bottom of the 2 sd range around the 1981-2010 average and back near the curve of declining Arctic sea ice. It will take another 5 years or so to see if there really is any recovery in Arctic sea ice but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Well, I was of that opinion before I ever read the story. The IS are fanatics of the worst kind who think everyone should be like them or they don't deserve to live.
I pretty much ignore all that political bullshit about who's funding what. I care mostly about the science. I have yet to find any reason to think there will be a major overturning of the primary points of current climate theory. There are a lot of details still to be nailed down but that increasing CO2 will cause the climate to warm and the cause of increasing CO2 is primarily human in origin is not in question.
I'm usually a pretty live and let live kind of guy but IS/ISIL/ISIS need to be treated like they're treating the people who don't agree with them, with no mercy. That is come down on them like a ton of bricks.
The ISP gets paid by their subscribers to provide a link to the internet. If the demands their subscribers place on them is too much then they should up their rates or charge by bandwidth usage.
I don't know. My intelligence kind of goes away when my dick is sliding in something.
It's a draft of a paper that isn't due to be finalized until November. In the context of "something must be done right now!" November is essentially equal to right now.
I don't know how they are financially dependent on that. Don't you think we'd be studying the climate regardless of the reality of global warming?
As far as being more interested in popular opinion than truth, that argument always baffles me. There is a reality to what they are studying that can't be changed by bias or wishful thinking. As scientists their reputations a dependent accurately reporting their findings. If they are found to have purposely fudged their research their careers are over and their reputation is mud. It's possible they are wrong but if they are they are honestly wrong.
LOL. There are some local climate contrarians (to put it nicely) here in Oregon who are convinced I'm a sock puppet for David Appell. I find it amusing and an indication of how easily they latch on to erroneous ideas.
It seems the alarmists are adamant that the agenda should be to curtail use of energy ...
It's more about changing the way we produce energy, not curtailing it. Besides, who can be against reduction of energy use through using it more efficiently?
So you're saying our successors will be Kzinti?
The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact it is possible to have flooding in the middle of a drought without ending the drought. They operate on different timescales.
The panel would be disbanded, if Climate Change turned out to be a hoax so all members are interested in maintaining the fear.
Since none of the members of the panel are paid to be on it why should they care?
A new, small VoIP service should have the right to demand its packets get the same priority as any other VoIP service period. The source shouldn't matter, just the type of packets.
And with a bit of genetic engineering we could add another finger to our hands. How about another thumb outside of the pinkie?
I don't think QoS violates net neutrality. I don't have any problem with expediting certain kinds of packets that are time critical. The problem comes when you do it only for your own packets or the packets of people who have paid you to expedite them to the detriment of other producers of those kind of packets.
I would argue that stupidity is also being unwilling to acquire knowledge that runs counter to your ideology. The belief that ideology can trump reality is stupid.