But it's not like every other flood. It's flooded places that haven't flooded in anyone's living memory. The amount of rain in the storms was enhanced compared to previous events.
In my state (Oregon, vote by mail) I fill in a paper ballot, place it in a secrecy envelope and sign the outside of the envelope. Once they validate my signature by comparing it with the signature on my registration they remove the ballot from the secrecy envelope and put it in the pile of other validated ballots. At that point there is no way to tie a vote back to an individual.
I can also verify that my vote was accepted for counting by checking online with the Secretary of State's office. If there is a problem I may have a chance to fix it depending on timing. All in all I'm confident that my ballot is secret and that it is being counted.
You need to learn the law of large numbers. When you combine the results of many measurements into one it's perfectly reasonable to express final result to a couple of orders of magnitude better precision than the original measurement.
Except since about 8,000 years ago we've been slowly dropping into the next ice age, at least until we started raising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere a couple of hundred years ago.
How do you "fix" time dependant measurements made in the past? All you can do is work with the data you have.
People like you make accusations of political bias all the time but never provide any scientific evidence for why the adjustments are wrong. Seems like a clear case of projection to me.
It doesn't matter. Reading accuracy to the nearest degree is good enough. When you combine thousands of measurements into a single composite it's reasonable to express it to thousandths of a degree.
Don't worry, we've already prevented that from happening for the foreseeable future and we know how to stop it by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Actually satellites don't collect data over the poles because of the tilt of their orbit so they don't cover the whole earth. Some of the strongest warming is in the Arctic.
I hope you're trying to be funny but if you're not it should be relatively easy for other competent scientists to show they are wrong. Reality is what it is and you can't change it just because you don't like it.
I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data. There are nearly always adjustments made to account for known errors in the data. The only issue is whether the adjustments are scientifically justified or not. It takes science to determine that.
Open source software doesn't matter. How would a voter verify that's what's actually installed on a machine. Better the simple method of voting on paper that anyone can understand.
The signature is not on my ballot but on the outside of the envelope containing my ballot. Once the signature is validated the ballot is separated from the envelope. I watched the process once so I'm confident the comparisons are being done. If they can't validate your signature they send you a notification and you have a few days to come down and verify that it is correct.
In my state we have vote by mail and I don't get sent a ballot unless I'm registered under my correct address. My ID is my signature on the outside of the ballot envelope which gets compared to my signature on my registration. It a system that works well.
No climate model is perfect. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The lack of strong agreement between climate models and observations in the 2000s is as much a reflection of natural variability that no climate model can predict ahead of time as it is due to any problem with the climate models themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
You can point to the floods in 1927, 2005 and 2011 but there are houses flooded by this flood that were not flooded by those previous floods.
Your reference to a paper on tropical cyclones is a non sequitur since the storm that caused this flooding was not a tropical cyclone.
The dude said it's "like every other flood" but it isn't because he can't point to a single flood in the past that was like this one.
But it's not like every other flood. It's flooded places that haven't flooded in anyone's living memory. The amount of rain in the storms was enhanced compared to previous events.
NAMBLA. wants to be on Manbang.
Welcome to the Borg. You will be assimilated.
In my state (Oregon, vote by mail) I fill in a paper ballot, place it in a secrecy envelope and sign the outside of the envelope. Once they validate my signature by comparing it with the signature on my registration they remove the ballot from the secrecy envelope and put it in the pile of other validated ballots. At that point there is no way to tie a vote back to an individual.
I can also verify that my vote was accepted for counting by checking online with the Secretary of State's office. If there is a problem I may have a chance to fix it depending on timing. All in all I'm confident that my ballot is secret and that it is being counted.
You need to learn the law of large numbers. When you combine the results of many measurements into one it's perfectly reasonable to express final result to a couple of orders of magnitude better precision than the original measurement.
Except since about 8,000 years ago we've been slowly dropping into the next ice age, at least until we started raising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere a couple of hundred years ago.
97% is of working climate scientists. 88% must refer to scientists in general.
How do you "fix" time dependant measurements made in the past? All you can do is work with the data you have.
People like you make accusations of political bias all the time but never provide any scientific evidence for why the adjustments are wrong. Seems like a clear case of projection to me.
Even if the errors are systematic that may only affect the absolute reading you get but not necessarily the trend over time.
It doesn't matter. Reading accuracy to the nearest degree is good enough. When you combine thousands of measurements into a single composite it's reasonable to express it to thousandths of a degree.
Don't worry, we've already prevented that from happening for the foreseeable future and we know how to stop it by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Accuracy to 1 degree is good enough. When you combine thousands of measurements the results can be expressed in thousandths of a degree.
Actually satellites don't collect data over the poles because of the tilt of their orbit so they don't cover the whole earth. Some of the strongest warming is in the Arctic.
I hope you're trying to be funny but if you're not it should be relatively easy for other competent scientists to show they are wrong. Reality is what it is and you can't change it just because you don't like it.
I challenge you to find any scientific study that uses raw, unfiltered data. There are nearly always adjustments made to account for known errors in the data. The only issue is whether the adjustments are scientifically justified or not. It takes science to determine that.
Regarding whether my ballot is accepted or not I can and have gone on line to check that.
Open source software doesn't matter. How would a voter verify that's what's actually installed on a machine. Better the simple method of voting on paper that anyone can understand.
The signature is not on my ballot but on the outside of the envelope containing my ballot. Once the signature is validated the ballot is separated from the envelope. I watched the process once so I'm confident the comparisons are being done. If they can't validate your signature they send you a notification and you have a few days to come down and verify that it is correct.
The GW Bush administration made voter fraud a point of emphasis with the US attorneys in the early 2000s and they didn't find squat.
In my state we have vote by mail and I don't get sent a ballot unless I'm registered under my correct address. My ID is my signature on the outside of the ballot envelope which gets compared to my signature on my registration. It a system that works well.
If you need a picture ID to vote it should be your voter registration card given to you free of charge at the time you register to vote.
No climate model is perfect. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The lack of strong agreement between climate models and observations in the 2000s is as much a reflection of natural variability that no climate model can predict ahead of time as it is due to any problem with the climate models themselves.