Not even close. The Earth is accumulating heat at a rate of about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. The increase in atmospheric temperatures has slowed a bit in the last decade+ but the oceans where over 90% of the heat goes continue to warm.
CO2 is pretty well mixed in the atmosphere with the maximum variation between different locations being on the order of 10 ppm. In general it is a bit higher in the Northern Hemisphere dropping some the further south you get. Here's a paper from 2000 titled The Natural Latitudinal Distribution of Atmospheric CO2 that addresses the issue.
Actually there is a mostly climate science conference going on right now in San Fransisco, CA. The 2013 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting has more than 22,000 people in attendance and is generally the largest gathering of the climate science community yearly. I've been hearing some fascinating stories out of it.
Remember Michael Mann of the Climate Research Unit of the East Anglia University...
Why should we take anything you say seriously when you make such and elementary error as that? Mann of course is at Penn State and before that at Virginia and has never been associated with the CRU.
Compared to the amount of water vapor evaporated into the air from the ocean's surface (70%+ of the surface) human emissions of water vapor are a rounding error. Any excess water vapor in the atmosphere is quickly precipitated out. It's just not a factor.
While it's true that methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide it's also true that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is a bit less than 2 ppm whereas the concentration of CO2 is ~400 ppm, a factor of 200.
Hah! Throw out everything Phil Jones has ever done or reproduce it independently like the BEST group did and the answers still come out the same. There are thousands of scientists around the world who are studying the problem intensely. The thought that all of them are in on a conspiracy to bugger the science for political reasons strains credulity to the breaking point. It would have to be the biggest conspiracy ever and it would be impossible to hold a conspiracy that big together for any length of time.
Regarding hurricanes there was some speculation a decade ago about more of them but the IPCC has been ambivalent about that. Mostly what they say is that there is likely to be an increase in the average strength in the future. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was pretty quiet but the 2013 Pacific cyclone season wasn't. However, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are all tied for the 3rd most named storms in the Atlantic season so your "Reality is quieter hurricane seasons each year" statement is just wrong.
As for "No record lows anymore", I challenge you to find any scientist in the field that has actually said that. It hasn't happened. At most what they would say is that there will very likely be more record highs than record lows in the future.
I have read plenty on the subject but obviously not the stuff you read. Actually I have read some stuff from your side and most of it I find pretty laughable. Roy Spencer has some interesting stuff occasionally. I do read papers on the subject from time to time and I have read the IPCC AR4 WG I completely but they're a part of the conspiracy, aren't they?
I have no idea what you mean by "... you just repeat crap that has been debunked for over 5 years...".
Um... I imagine if Martin Luther translated the bible to any language it was German, not English. King James was one of those who translated it to English.
As far as your rant against AWG, I thought American wire gauge was not controversial.
Oh, I get it, you're talking about anthropogenic global warming. You know the beauty of science is that it's self correcting because it's based on an underlying reality that is not something that can be manipulated by humans. If the climate scientists are promulgating politically motivated science then sooner or later they will be found out and disgraced. The fact that there has been active opposition to their position for over 20 years and extremely active opposition for over a decade and they still haven't seriously dented the existing theory is an indication to me that the basics of climate science are probably good science. Maybe someone will come up with something like what plate tectonics was to geology but I wouldn't bet on it at this point.
It's very possible to oppose apartheid, yet support the (then) current government of South Africa because you feared if they lost power the government which replaced it would be much worse than apartheid.
And Nelson Mandela is probably the major reason RSA didn't devolve into a civil war or become like Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) after apartheid ended. His leadership in those first few years after the change held the country together.
How many desktops/laptops are your four IT staff supporting? It doesn't sound like any. We have 5 people supporting about 400 people including around 350 desktops/laptops and the phone system as well. Three of us do a little programming but it's mostly system stuff and less than 25% of our job. The fact that about 250 of our users are engineers and engineering support staff makes supporting the desktops a bit more challenging.
Absolutely. It may be possible to make some statements about a group of people that apply generally but when it comes down to it you have to deal with everyone as an individual. Trying to force them to fit your prejudicial opinion for what they should be is counterproductive.
Is the theory of plate tectonics testable in the laboratory? Does the scientific method demand something be testable in a human lifetime? As I have replied to you before the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. What you call macroevolution is simply the accumulation of lots of microevolution over time.
Actually in science you never prove anything absolutely. Everything is subject to amendment pending new information. There are many things in science that we might as well consider to be proven for all practical purposes but we may have said that about Newton's Laws before Einstein showed up. OTOH it is possible to disprove something in science.
I suspect that has more to do with your lack of understanding of what their predictions really are saying than anything else. Perhaps you could give me some specific examples where you think that's happened.
Considering that temperatures are still within the published ranges of 95% statistical certainty it's not scientific to say the projections of temperatures are 100% wrong. Once they get outside of those ranges and stay outside of them you might have a point. Meanwhile scientists will simply be asking themselves what did they miss and will be working to improve their understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even close. The Earth is accumulating heat at a rate of about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second. The increase in atmospheric temperatures has slowed a bit in the last decade+ but the oceans where over 90% of the heat goes continue to warm.
And burning 100 tonnes of coal will produce about 256 tonnes of CO2 (assuming the coal is 70% carbon).
CO2 is pretty well mixed in the atmosphere with the maximum variation between different locations being on the order of 10 ppm. In general it is a bit higher in the Northern Hemisphere dropping some the further south you get. Here's a paper from 2000 titled The Natural Latitudinal Distribution of Atmospheric CO2 that addresses the issue.
Actually there is a mostly climate science conference going on right now in San Fransisco, CA. The 2013 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting has more than 22,000 people in attendance and is generally the largest gathering of the climate science community yearly. I've been hearing some fascinating stories out of it.
Remember Michael Mann of the Climate Research Unit of the East Anglia University ...
Why should we take anything you say seriously when you make such and elementary error as that? Mann of course is at Penn State and before that at Virginia and has never been associated with the CRU.
Compared to the amount of water vapor evaporated into the air from the ocean's surface (70%+ of the surface) human emissions of water vapor are a rounding error. Any excess water vapor in the atmosphere is quickly precipitated out. It's just not a factor.
While it's true that methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide it's also true that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is a bit less than 2 ppm whereas the concentration of CO2 is ~400 ppm, a factor of 200.
Considering the phrase "just do it" in the GP shouldn't that be Swoosh (tm)!
The USPS has some mandates from Congress about how they can raise rates and what they can charge.
Hah! Throw out everything Phil Jones has ever done or reproduce it independently like the BEST group did and the answers still come out the same. There are thousands of scientists around the world who are studying the problem intensely. The thought that all of them are in on a conspiracy to bugger the science for political reasons strains credulity to the breaking point. It would have to be the biggest conspiracy ever and it would be impossible to hold a conspiracy that big together for any length of time.
Regarding hurricanes there was some speculation a decade ago about more of them but the IPCC has been ambivalent about that. Mostly what they say is that there is likely to be an increase in the average strength in the future. The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was pretty quiet but the 2013 Pacific cyclone season wasn't. However, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are all tied for the 3rd most named storms in the Atlantic season so your "Reality is quieter hurricane seasons each year" statement is just wrong.
As for "No record lows anymore", I challenge you to find any scientist in the field that has actually said that. It hasn't happened. At most what they would say is that there will very likely be more record highs than record lows in the future.
I have read plenty on the subject but obviously not the stuff you read. Actually I have read some stuff from your side and most of it I find pretty laughable. Roy Spencer has some interesting stuff occasionally. I do read papers on the subject from time to time and I have read the IPCC AR4 WG I completely but they're a part of the conspiracy, aren't they?
I have no idea what you mean by "... you just repeat crap that has been debunked for over 5 years ...".
Um... I imagine if Martin Luther translated the bible to any language it was German, not English. King James was one of those who translated it to English.
As far as your rant against AWG, I thought American wire gauge was not controversial.
Oh, I get it, you're talking about anthropogenic global warming. You know the beauty of science is that it's self correcting because it's based on an underlying reality that is not something that can be manipulated by humans. If the climate scientists are promulgating politically motivated science then sooner or later they will be found out and disgraced. The fact that there has been active opposition to their position for over 20 years and extremely active opposition for over a decade and they still haven't seriously dented the existing theory is an indication to me that the basics of climate science are probably good science. Maybe someone will come up with something like what plate tectonics was to geology but I wouldn't bet on it at this point.
I absolutely agree with you. The leadership of both men was critical at the time.
Nah, he's just a racist asshole.
It's very possible to oppose apartheid, yet support the (then) current government of South Africa because you feared if they lost power the government which replaced it would be much worse than apartheid.
And Nelson Mandela is probably the major reason RSA didn't devolve into a civil war or become like Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) after apartheid ended. His leadership in those first few years after the change held the country together.
As if that doesn't happen with all administrations.
How many desktops/laptops are your four IT staff supporting? It doesn't sound like any. We have 5 people supporting about 400 people including around 350 desktops/laptops and the phone system as well. Three of us do a little programming but it's mostly system stuff and less than 25% of our job. The fact that about 250 of our users are engineers and engineering support staff makes supporting the desktops a bit more challenging.
Absolutely. It may be possible to make some statements about a group of people that apply generally but when it comes down to it you have to deal with everyone as an individual. Trying to force them to fit your prejudicial opinion for what they should be is counterproductive.
Is the theory of plate tectonics testable in the laboratory? Does the scientific method demand something be testable in a human lifetime? As I have replied to you before the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. What you call macroevolution is simply the accumulation of lots of microevolution over time.
You didn't read my reply to the AC, did you?
The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.
The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time.
Right, a version of panspermia.
Actually in science you never prove anything absolutely. Everything is subject to amendment pending new information. There are many things in science that we might as well consider to be proven for all practical purposes but we may have said that about Newton's Laws before Einstein showed up. OTOH it is possible to disprove something in science.
I suspect that has more to do with your lack of understanding of what their predictions really are saying than anything else. Perhaps you could give me some specific examples where you think that's happened.
Considering that temperatures are still within the published ranges of 95% statistical certainty it's not scientific to say the projections of temperatures are 100% wrong. Once they get outside of those ranges and stay outside of them you might have a point. Meanwhile scientists will simply be asking themselves what did they miss and will be working to improve their understanding.