The "coldest 6 months in over a century" where? If you're talking about the US heartland all I heard was it was the coldest since the early 1990's, about 25 years. If you're younger than that then it's the coldest you've ever experienced. And what makes you think a single season has any meaning (more than it's small contribution to the data) in regards to the climate.
The signal to noise ratio is still low enough for farmers to ignore the global warming signal for the most part. Problem is that by the time the signal becomes in-your-face obvious it's too late to fix it.
The UoEA lost their input raw data, because they didn't have enough storage. Once the raw data was gone, they had no way to start again from scratch.
That's just bullshit. The data they deleted was based on temperature records from around the world which is still available from the original sources. Nothing was lost.
Regarding code, the complete code for one of the worlds major climate models, the NASA/GISS Model E is freely available. It's written in Fortran 90 which is a fine language for this type of application. Why don't you apply your code analysis talent to that and see what you come up with.
... but there are reports that the IPCC deliberately excluded input from climate scientists who did not follow the IPCC's narrative.
It's easy to say "there are reports..." but until you produce the actual reports this applies to so I can judge them myself it's just useless innuendo with no basis in reality.
Are you using the term "ice age" in the scientific sense or the popular vernacular sense? In scientific terms we are still in an ice age and will be until the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are melted which is at minimum several thousand years from now. In the popular vernacular what is called an ice age is a glaciation in the scientific terminology. We came out of the last glaciation over 10,000 years ago and temperatures hit a peak 6,000-8,000 years ago and have been cooling ever since. So in that sense we are now headed into the next "ice age" except that we've short circuited that process by increasing CO2 to levels not seen for millions of years.
That said, try to say that in the government grant funded, let's get ourselves an international tax (because that is REQUIRED before you can have an international army).
People keep saying that but government grants (in the US at least) are matters of public record. Has anyone ever gone through those grants to try and prove that assertion? I spent 3 or 4 hours one night going through National Science Foundation grants and didn't find anything to support it. If someone does a scientifically valid statistical study of government grant programs and comes up with evidence to support such a bias I'll listen. Until then it's just an unsupported assertion.
What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool.
It certainly would be wrong to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But I just don't understand how people think there could be such a worldwide conspiracy in the climate science community to fudge the science. The beauty of science is that there is an underlying reality that is immune from fudging. The ultimate goal of science is to discover that underlying reality. Most of the scientists are smart enough to know that if they deliberately publish something that is false they will get called on it and lose their chosen profession. In a field receiving as much worldwide attention as climate science has over the last 60 years it just doesn't seem possible to me that such a conspiracy could last that long.
10 years is not plenty of time and climate models don't use data in the way you imply at all. Empirical climate data is not fed into climate models but used as something to compare the output to. From a statistical perspective it's impossible to tell whether the temperature trend since 2000 has continued the previous warming trend or has flat lined. The period just isn't long enough for statistical certainty on that question. 30 years is the classical climatological period as defined long ago by the World Meteorological Organization which is why 30 years gets used in a lot of climatological situations.
Of course scientists don't think of everything. But I can't think of anything significant in the climate science realm that climate contrarians have brought up that the scientists didn't think of first.
You're still just talking generalities. Give me a specific example. For instance has the budget for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, one of the primary centers for climate research in the United States, gone up by a factor of 100 (after accounting for inflation of course)?
Of course new institutions have been created and spending has increased. Understanding our climate and the world we live in is important science. But if you really think that nearly every climate scientist around the world is riding some gravy train by presenting a false picture of the science you need your head examined. They're (mostly) smart enough to know that sooner or later their duplicity will be found out because there is an underlying reality that can't be distorted and the great quest of science is discovering that reality. If those scientists give a damn about their scientific reputations they're not going to produce science that they know is counter to that reality.
Funny you should mention a 30 year old man. The last time the global average temperature for any month was below the 20th Century (1901-2000) average was 30 years ago in February of 1984. So that 30 year old man has never experienced a world where the monthly average temperature was below the 20th Century average.
I assume you're being sarcastic but if someone ever thinks they've come up with something that "scientists forgot to think about" they really should do some research first to see if they really missed. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone on the climate contrarian side actually come up with something that scientists haven't thought of before they did.
What will happen is that the sea level will slowly rise at a rate that's easy to avoid, But then along comes a big hurricane with the accompanying storm surge or a big Pacific tsunami and everyone panics and the roads get so jammed that some won't be able to escape the high water that because of the higher sea level is reaching places it never reached before.
3. You have various scientific foundations that have seen their budgets go up by more then 100 times what they had before and continued funding depends on this current level of hysteria. If the issue appears less credible the funding will dry up. They have a vested interest in specific results.
All I can say to that is [citation needed]. IOW, Prove it! Only specific examples will be accepted.
Yes of course, I was just being generous when I said "hours". I don't have a good feel for how cold those waters are but that far south they can't be much above 50F (10C).
With those two big engines hanging down from the wings I doubt a 777 would skip very well. Something like a 727 with then engines in the back up on the fuselage would have a better chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if we stopped spewing CO2 tomorrow it would take millenia, not centuries for the excess to process out.
So THAT is what caused the coldest 6 months in more than a century?
Have you got some data to back that up? Without that you got nothin'.
Then, it will take decades for the CO2 air concentration to reach sustainable levels.
It will take thousands of years for any significant reduction of atmospheric CO2 unless we do something to actively remove it.
You are right, science does not depend on you believing it. Your own thermometer is a poor substitute for a global array of thermometers.
If the coldest 6 months in over a century ...
The "coldest 6 months in over a century" where? If you're talking about the US heartland all I heard was it was the coldest since the early 1990's, about 25 years. If you're younger than that then it's the coldest you've ever experienced. And what makes you think a single season has any meaning (more than it's small contribution to the data) in regards to the climate.
I find it hilarious that you think one big rain event means the drought is over.
Higher temperatures means higher atmospheric water content, which means fewer overall dry regions.
An interesting hypothesis. Now go gather some evidence to support you hypothesis and we can talk.
The signal to noise ratio is still low enough for farmers to ignore the global warming signal for the most part. Problem is that by the time the signal becomes in-your-face obvious it's too late to fix it.
The UoEA lost their input raw data, because they didn't have enough storage. Once the raw data was gone, they had no way to start again from scratch.
That's just bullshit. The data they deleted was based on temperature records from around the world which is still available from the original sources. Nothing was lost.
Regarding code, the complete code for one of the worlds major climate models, the NASA/GISS Model E is freely available. It's written in Fortran 90 which is a fine language for this type of application. Why don't you apply your code analysis talent to that and see what you come up with.
It's easy to say "there are reports..." but until you produce the actual reports this applies to so I can judge them myself it's just useless innuendo with no basis in reality.
Are you using the term "ice age" in the scientific sense or the popular vernacular sense? In scientific terms we are still in an ice age and will be until the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are melted which is at minimum several thousand years from now. In the popular vernacular what is called an ice age is a glaciation in the scientific terminology. We came out of the last glaciation over 10,000 years ago and temperatures hit a peak 6,000-8,000 years ago and have been cooling ever since. So in that sense we are now headed into the next "ice age" except that we've short circuited that process by increasing CO2 to levels not seen for millions of years.
That said, try to say that in the government grant funded, let's get ourselves an international tax (because that is REQUIRED before you can have an international army).
People keep saying that but government grants (in the US at least) are matters of public record. Has anyone ever gone through those grants to try and prove that assertion? I spent 3 or 4 hours one night going through National Science Foundation grants and didn't find anything to support it. If someone does a scientifically valid statistical study of government grant programs and comes up with evidence to support such a bias I'll listen. Until then it's just an unsupported assertion.
What would be wrong would be to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But if you think that people can consistently draw the ethical line there just because they have Ph.D. after their name, then you are a fool.
It certainly would be wrong to fudge the science to collect a paycheck. But I just don't understand how people think there could be such a worldwide conspiracy in the climate science community to fudge the science. The beauty of science is that there is an underlying reality that is immune from fudging. The ultimate goal of science is to discover that underlying reality. Most of the scientists are smart enough to know that if they deliberately publish something that is false they will get called on it and lose their chosen profession. In a field receiving as much worldwide attention as climate science has over the last 60 years it just doesn't seem possible to me that such a conspiracy could last that long.
10 years is not plenty of time and climate models don't use data in the way you imply at all. Empirical climate data is not fed into climate models but used as something to compare the output to. From a statistical perspective it's impossible to tell whether the temperature trend since 2000 has continued the previous warming trend or has flat lined. The period just isn't long enough for statistical certainty on that question. 30 years is the classical climatological period as defined long ago by the World Meteorological Organization which is why 30 years gets used in a lot of climatological situations.
Of course scientists don't think of everything. But I can't think of anything significant in the climate science realm that climate contrarians have brought up that the scientists didn't think of first.
You're still just talking generalities. Give me a specific example. For instance has the budget for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, one of the primary centers for climate research in the United States, gone up by a factor of 100 (after accounting for inflation of course)?
Of course new institutions have been created and spending has increased. Understanding our climate and the world we live in is important science. But if you really think that nearly every climate scientist around the world is riding some gravy train by presenting a false picture of the science you need your head examined. They're (mostly) smart enough to know that sooner or later their duplicity will be found out because there is an underlying reality that can't be distorted and the great quest of science is discovering that reality. If those scientists give a damn about their scientific reputations they're not going to produce science that they know is counter to that reality.
Funny you should mention a 30 year old man. The last time the global average temperature for any month was below the 20th Century (1901-2000) average was 30 years ago in February of 1984. So that 30 year old man has never experienced a world where the monthly average temperature was below the 20th Century average.
If there is global catastrophe due to AGW then insolvency is all but guaranteed.
I assume you're being sarcastic but if someone ever thinks they've come up with something that "scientists forgot to think about" they really should do some research first to see if they really missed. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone on the climate contrarian side actually come up with something that scientists haven't thought of before they did.
What will happen is that the sea level will slowly rise at a rate that's easy to avoid, But then along comes a big hurricane with the accompanying storm surge or a big Pacific tsunami and everyone panics and the roads get so jammed that some won't be able to escape the high water that because of the higher sea level is reaching places it never reached before.
3. You have various scientific foundations that have seen their budgets go up by more then 100 times what they had before and continued funding depends on this current level of hysteria. If the issue appears less credible the funding will dry up. They have a vested interest in specific results.
All I can say to that is [citation needed]. IOW, Prove it! Only specific examples will be accepted.
How often do they put out a "We're all going do die" report like this?
Straw man much?
Yes of course, I was just being generous when I said "hours". I don't have a good feel for how cold those waters are but that far south they can't be much above 50F (10C).
roman_mir, and here I thought you were all about personal responsibility.
Possible but that seems unlikely in this case since the cockpit on a 777 has its own independent oxygen supplies for just that situation.
With those two big engines hanging down from the wings I doubt a 777 would skip very well. Something like a 727 with then engines in the back up on the fuselage would have a better chance.