That graph would be more real if the "reality" was extended through 2015. You would find the observational data very close to the average of the climate models.
The temperature datasets don't contribute anything to climate models except as something to compare the climate model output to in the first place. Climate models a physical models that use the physics involved to determine their output. You could start them anywhere and they would eventually converge on a realistic representation of climate.
Even the Earth having the hottest six months on record or the 14th consecutive month of unprecedented hotness is not particularly meaningful in the context of climate. It could be just a statistical fluke. But when you plot the trend of El Nino temperature trends over the last 50 years you find a steadily increasing temperature for El Ninos (as well as La Ninas and ENSO neutral years) which is meaningful in the context of climate.
Before I get slammed for this, note that I certainly don't deny global warming/climate change, but when we get record cold (which some areas got last winter), and "deniers" use that as evidence that global warming is a sham, what do you say to them?
Well... the same thing applies here.
If you're talking about climate any individual record such as this one in Kuwait or individual records don't have much meaning. It's only when you analyze the changing trend in temperature over a climatically valid period of time that they have meaning in the context of climate.
Since like not 10,000 years ago. The warming coming out of the last glaciation (ice age) started ~25,000 years ago and reached a peak during the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago. The temperature trend since then has been slightly downward as would be expected from an analysis of Milankovitch Cycles. It's only in the last ~100 years that a new upward trend got started due to the increase in greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) in the atmosphere.
Here's the Maryland page on voter registration. It talks about your "official voter registration signature" which makes me think you are signing a poll book when you vote. If you need an ID to register then why should you need anything other than your Voter Notification Card to actually vote?
Some first time voters in Maryland will be asked to show ID before voting. If you are asked to show ID, please show an election judge one of the following forms of ID:
A copy of a current and valid photo ID (i.e., Maryland driver's license, MVA ID card, student, employee, or military ID card, U.S. passport, or any other State or federal government-issued ID card); or
A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. Current means that the document is dated within 3 months of the election.
So some first time voters are required to provide identification but are able to use things other than picture ID. I couldn't find anything about signing a poll book but maybe that's part of the county's elections procedures, not the state's. You could contact your county elections board and ask them what steps they take to prevent voter fraud.
But again I have to say that until someone provides actual evidence of anything other than occasional voter fraud by individuals I just think the ID requirement for election day is not needed.
I live in Oregon. We have vote by mail. The signature on the outside of the ballot envelope is compared to the signature on your voter registration application. That works fine for me. Don't you have to sign the poll book when you go to vote? Are you going to be able to match your father's signature well enough to get away with it?
Arguing about lack of detection doesn't mean that it does happen either. There's a lot of speculation about that kind of voter fraud but until someone demonstrates that it's anything other than rare requiring ID at the polls is just an onerous requirement for otherwise eligible voters who don't have a need for such ID. If you're going to vet whether someone is eligible to vote it should be done at the time they register to vote and their voter registration card should be the only such ID required at the polls.
I know my dad isn't going to vote, so I go out to his polling place and vote as him for who I want to vote for. How would anyone even know I was not my father?
Have you actually done this? If not I'd like to see you try.
The GW Bush administration had the US Attorneys looking for voter fraud and they didn't find jack shit. If they couldn't find anything what makes you think there is anything there? Your stories sound like a collection of urban legends.
The vote fraud the concerns me are as follows: 1) First anything that can be done to change the tallies in subtle ways, particularly with voting machines without an audit trail. 2) The hyperpartisan gerrymandering. gerrymandering [buzzfeed.com] 3) indirect voting fraud such as conspiring to limit voting machines or purge rolls right before an election, while at the same time making it harder to fix the mess.
Technically speaking those are election fraud. Actual vote fraud would involve the actual act of voting.
I'd like to see you back that statement up with some actual evidence. I see people making the claim of voter fraud all the time but I never see any actual news stories about it. The GW Bush administration made finding voter fraud a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they found Jack Shit.
So put up or shut up. Prove that voter fraud is anything more than rare in the USA.
The proper ID for voting is a voter registration card and the proper time to vet whether someone is eligible to vote is when they register to vote. On election day the only ID you should need is your voter registration card (or your signature).
That statement would make a lot more sense if there were any evidence of significant voter fraud of the type that such ID would prevent. Otherwise it's just an unnecessary expense on the voter.
Go ahead and try to find evidence of such voter fraud. It doesn't exist.
Well, I don't really follow the polls all that closely but I do read the news stories about them. My impression of Rasmussen is that they generally have an unwarranted Republican bias. But maybe they're right this time. The only poll that really counts in the one on November 8th.
Maybe there's a difference between privacy in regards to the government and privacy in general. But with the continued proliferation of technology privacy in general becomes less and less doable. How much of your online activities are truly private? The government may be proscribed from accessing them but the private businesses running those services may not be. How much of your day to day activities are truly private with everyone having a camera on their phone?
The science fiction author David Brin has been pushing the idea of sousveillance, the idea that we need to surveil as hard from underneath as they do from the top in order to keep them on the straight and narrow. If there are no secrets then you have nothing to hold over anyone's head except things that society in general proscribes.
Screwed up the quoting, here's how it should have looked:
From Muslim extremists to Lone Wolf right wing gunmen, we will never be truly safe PERIOD
FTFY, there is no such thing as complete safety. The question is how much freedom you're willing to give up in order to get an incremental increase in safety. Personally I think the citizens of this country need to man up and accept that there will be a certain amount of bad things happening and to not allow our fear to drive us to reductions in freedom that play right into the hands of many of the people planning those bad things.
From Muslim extremists to Lone Wolf right wing gunmen, we will never be truly safe PERIOD/QUOTE
FTFY, there is no such thing as complete safety. The question is how much freedom you're willing to give up in order to get an incremental increase in safety. Personally I think the citizens of this country need to man up and accept that there will be a certain amount of bad things happening and to not allow our fear to drive us to reductions in freedom that play right into the hands of many of the people planning those bad things.
Like a say people tend to see what they want to see. After over 20 years of going after the Clintons people on the right are sure there's something there even though none of the investigations has been fruitful. So Hillary Clinton must have set up her e-mail server for nefarious reasons rather than simply as a matter of convenience. To me 20 years of going after the Clintons with essentially no results just indicates the right's obsession with them and their success a politicians.
Don't get me wrong. Hillary Clinton is not my favorite politician. She's too corporatist for me. If this were the 1960s she'd be solidly in the Republican party. I voted for Bernie in the the primary. But as some have said, rarely have we had a Presidential candidate with so much experience, 8 years in the White House during her husband's Presidency, a Senator and Secretary of State. When I compare Hillary to Donald well there really is no comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
That graph would be more real if the "reality" was extended through 2015. You would find the observational data very close to the average of the climate models.
The temperature datasets don't contribute anything to climate models except as something to compare the climate model output to in the first place. Climate models a physical models that use the physics involved to determine their output. You could start them anywhere and they would eventually converge on a realistic representation of climate.
Even the Earth having the hottest six months on record or the 14th consecutive month of unprecedented hotness is not particularly meaningful in the context of climate. It could be just a statistical fluke. But when you plot the trend of El Nino temperature trends over the last 50 years you find a steadily increasing temperature for El Ninos (as well as La Ninas and ENSO neutral years) which is meaningful in the context of climate.
Here's the graph.
Before I get slammed for this, note that I certainly don't deny global warming/climate change, but when we get record cold (which some areas got last winter), and "deniers" use that as evidence that global warming is a sham, what do you say to them?
Well... the same thing applies here.
If you're talking about climate any individual record such as this one in Kuwait or individual records don't have much meaning. It's only when you analyze the changing trend in temperature over a climatically valid period of time that they have meaning in the context of climate.
"But the overall trend is steadily upwards."
Since, like 10,000 years ago,.
Since like not 10,000 years ago. The warming coming out of the last glaciation (ice age) started ~25,000 years ago and reached a peak during the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8,000 years ago. The temperature trend since then has been slightly downward as would be expected from an analysis of Milankovitch Cycles. It's only in the last ~100 years that a new upward trend got started due to the increase in greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) in the atmosphere.
In a Libertarian idealistic world, labor would be as free as capital is to cross borders.
Here's the Maryland page on voter registration. It talks about your "official voter registration signature" which makes me think you are signing a poll book when you vote. If you need an ID to register then why should you need anything other than your Voter Notification Card to actually vote?
I also found this here.
Some first time voters in Maryland will be asked to show ID before voting. If you are asked to show ID, please show an election judge one of the following forms of ID:
A copy of a current and valid photo ID (i.e., Maryland driver's license, MVA ID card, student, employee, or military ID card, U.S. passport, or any other State or federal government-issued ID card); or
A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. Current means that the document is dated within 3 months of the election.
So some first time voters are required to provide identification but are able to use things other than picture ID. I couldn't find anything about signing a poll book but maybe that's part of the county's elections procedures, not the state's. You could contact your county elections board and ask them what steps they take to prevent voter fraud.
But again I have to say that until someone provides actual evidence of anything other than occasional voter fraud by individuals I just think the ID requirement for election day is not needed.
I live in Oregon. We have vote by mail. The signature on the outside of the ballot envelope is compared to the signature on your voter registration application. That works fine for me. Don't you have to sign the poll book when you go to vote? Are you going to be able to match your father's signature well enough to get away with it?
Arguing about lack of detection doesn't mean that it does happen either. There's a lot of speculation about that kind of voter fraud but until someone demonstrates that it's anything other than rare requiring ID at the polls is just an onerous requirement for otherwise eligible voters who don't have a need for such ID. If you're going to vet whether someone is eligible to vote it should be done at the time they register to vote and their voter registration card should be the only such ID required at the polls.
I know my dad isn't going to vote, so I go out to his polling place and vote as him for who I want to vote for. How would anyone even know I was not my father?
Have you actually done this? If not I'd like to see you try.
The GW Bush administration had the US Attorneys looking for voter fraud and they didn't find jack shit. If they couldn't find anything what makes you think there is anything there? Your stories sound like a collection of urban legends.
The vote fraud the concerns me are as follows:
1) First anything that can be done to change the tallies in subtle ways, particularly with voting machines without an audit trail.
2) The hyperpartisan gerrymandering. gerrymandering [buzzfeed.com]
3) indirect voting fraud such as conspiring to limit voting machines or purge rolls right before an election, while at the same time making it harder to fix the mess.
Technically speaking those are election fraud. Actual vote fraud would involve the actual act of voting.
IOW, accusations of fraud are code for election results I didn't like.
People do get caught, they are _never_ punished.
I'd like to see you back that statement up with some actual evidence. I see people making the claim of voter fraud all the time but I never see any actual news stories about it. The GW Bush administration made finding voter fraud a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they found Jack Shit.
So put up or shut up. Prove that voter fraud is anything more than rare in the USA.
The proper ID for voting is a voter registration card and the proper time to vet whether someone is eligible to vote is when they register to vote. On election day the only ID you should need is your voter registration card (or your signature).
If you're against voter ID you're pro-fraud.
That statement would make a lot more sense if there were any evidence of significant voter fraud of the type that such ID would prevent. Otherwise it's just an unnecessary expense on the voter.
Go ahead and try to find evidence of such voter fraud. It doesn't exist.
The law against going armed near a polling place only applies if you are not white. Otherwise you're just exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. /sarc
Well, I don't really follow the polls all that closely but I do read the news stories about them. My impression of Rasmussen is that they generally have an unwarranted Republican bias. But maybe they're right this time. The only poll that really counts in the one on November 8th.
Maybe there's a difference between privacy in regards to the government and privacy in general. But with the continued proliferation of technology privacy in general becomes less and less doable. How much of your online activities are truly private? The government may be proscribed from accessing them but the private businesses running those services may not be. How much of your day to day activities are truly private with everyone having a camera on their phone?
The science fiction author David Brin has been pushing the idea of sousveillance, the idea that we need to surveil as hard from underneath as they do from the top in order to keep them on the straight and narrow. If there are no secrets then you have nothing to hold over anyone's head except things that society in general proscribes.
I'm not surprised to see Peter Defazio of Oregon on the list. If they included Senators they might get Ron Wyden on there too.
Screwed up the quoting, here's how it should have looked:
From Muslim extremists to Lone Wolf right wing gunmen, we will never be truly safe PERIOD
FTFY, there is no such thing as complete safety. The question is how much freedom you're willing to give up in order to get an incremental increase in safety. Personally I think the citizens of this country need to man up and accept that there will be a certain amount of bad things happening and to not allow our fear to drive us to reductions in freedom that play right into the hands of many of the people planning those bad things.
From Muslim extremists to Lone Wolf right wing gunmen, we will never be truly safe PERIOD/QUOTE
FTFY, there is no such thing as complete safety. The question is how much freedom you're willing to give up in order to get an incremental increase in safety. Personally I think the citizens of this country need to man up and accept that there will be a certain amount of bad things happening and to not allow our fear to drive us to reductions in freedom that play right into the hands of many of the people planning those bad things.
Didn't Rasmussen predict a Romney win in 2012? Here's some data on the polling in 2012.
Didn't Rasmussen predict a Romney win in 2012?
You want to talk about a mockery of the rule of law how about the war crimes of GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld not being prosecuted?
Like a say people tend to see what they want to see. After over 20 years of going after the Clintons people on the right are sure there's something there even though none of the investigations has been fruitful. So Hillary Clinton must have set up her e-mail server for nefarious reasons rather than simply as a matter of convenience. To me 20 years of going after the Clintons with essentially no results just indicates the right's obsession with them and their success a politicians.
Don't get me wrong. Hillary Clinton is not my favorite politician. She's too corporatist for me. If this were the 1960s she'd be solidly in the Republican party. I voted for Bernie in the the primary. But as some have said, rarely have we had a Presidential candidate with so much experience, 8 years in the White House during her husband's Presidency, a Senator and Secretary of State. When I compare Hillary to Donald well there really is no comparison.