Oh, poor baby. You can't always get what you want.
I gave you two examples, sea level rise and Arctic sea ice with plenty of information in the posts I cited for you to dig deeper if you cared to. At this point I'm doubting you have the scientific skills to do that and to understand what was said in the papers even of you read them. Hence your desire to have it all presented to you on a silver platter.
So, the alarmists of the past were wrong.
That's quite a leap to assume they are wrong just because I, a lowly SysAdmin can't satisfy your desire for specifics. If you want to say they're wrong it's up to you to show specifically why they are wrong. That's the way it works in science.
Of course the original IPCC report only came out 25 years ago so there weren't a lot of quantified predictions before that.
I believe in science and the scientific method. You can't hurt my feeling by attempting to point out holes in the science. If they're valid then that's an advancement of science.
So I'm turning the tables on you. See if you can hurt my feelings by pointing out an obvious hole in the science of AGW and give me a shot at tearing it down. Link to prediction vs line to refutation style. And I won't accept some silly article like that New American post. You need to provide something with scientific substantiation.
The legend in the sea ice graph refers to the studies they come from. For instance "GISS AOM" refers to the GISS Fast Atmosphere Ocean model. The predictions cover from 1900 to 2100 and the bold red line is what the actual observations show. They start in 1950 presumable because observations before then are too spotty to be very useful in this context. The bold black line is the ensemble mean of the different predictions. The chart is only about Arctic sea ice, nothing to do with Antarctic sea ice. There has been plenty of stuff written about the rise in Antarctic sea ice. I suggest you seek it out.
I'm tired of banging my head against your wall and you could obviously keep stringing me along forever. As the future unfolds you will find out if the scientists are generally right about this as I believe they are. The problem is that the changes from AGW are subtle from year to year and seldom do something that slaps you in the face. That makes it easy for someone like you to continue to pick nits but it doesn't change the underlying reality. Good luck.
Having a social security number has nothing to do with citizenship. Anyone who works legally in the US is eligible for a SSN. All of the non-citizens who are in the country legally working with a green card have SSNs. As an example I specifically know about, Nicolas Batum, a French citizen who plays for the Portland Trailblazers has a social security number. Another example would be a coworker of mine. He is originally from South Africa but found his wife in the US. He became a citizen about 6 years ago but he had been living and working in the US for a decade before that and he had a SSN long before he became a naturalized citizen.
So what is this paperwork that is only given to citizens that Obama is planning to give them? The only paperwork I'm aware of that is given to citizens is a birth certificate showing you were born in the US or that one of your parents is a citizen or naturalization papers such as were given to my coworker from South Africa.
Ok, here a Real Climate post on Sea Level in the 5th IPCC Report. Figure 3a compares model projections of sea level rise to observations and since the 1950s the observations have been consistently above the mode projections. At the bottom of the post are references to the scientific papers the information was gleaned from. In each IPCC report since the second the sea level predictions have been higher than in the previous report and yet observations continue to be higher still. I guess you may classify those as failed predictions but they failed because it's worse than we predicted, not better.
It always surprises me how people can be so unskeptical of an article like your New American article. The AC did a decent job of addressing it but I'll comment on a couple of the points.
Regarding the global cooling predicted in the 1970's between 1965 and 1979 there were 7 published papers predicting global cooling and 42 predicting global warming. Global warming wins 6:1.
The Himalayan Glaciers melting by 2035 was a failure of proof reading by the relevant experts. The error was in the WG II report and if you look in the WG I report where the real science is laid out you would see nothing to support that.
As to Antarctic ice, yes the sea ice has grown (but not as much as Arctic sea ice has fallen) but the ice sheet, the ice sitting on the Antarctic continent lost and average of 70 Gt/year from 1992 to 2011.
As to evidence... I am apparently talking to someone that doesn't read the news.
Type "Obama Amnesty Judge" into your search engine of choice. You'll get a whole page of links referring to Obama's bs being so completely out of control that the US Judiciary is putting the brakes on it. Which is f'ing impressive because they rarely involve themselves in such matters unless the government goes WAY beyond its authority.
Where in all of that do you get that anyone is granting citizenship to any of them? Amnesty from deportation is not tantamount to granting citizenship. In a situation where resources are limited the President has discretion to direct the funds to where he thinks they'll do the most good. Did you know that Obama has deported more people than Bush did before him?
As to auditing voter registration lists, they are audited but not by the government. They're audited by private citizens and they do find fun names on their like "Mickey Mouse" or dead people that have been voting some how for years.
Evidence? Without that you're just making unsubstantiated accusations. I agree that there are dead people on the voter rolls that should be purged and occasionally a spouse has been caught trying to vote for their recently deceased spouse but it doesn't happen often enough to be much of a problem.
The system is not pristine but it's not currently overrun by fraud as you seem to think either. If you want to convince me otherwise you'll have to give me specific evidence backed up by data that can be verified. Good luck.
First, who said they won't be citizens? If you make anyone that crosses the border a citizen then they can vote.
What evidence do you have that is happening? It takes far more than crossing the border to become a citizen of the US (unless you are born here of course).
If the democrats really didn't want illegals to vote then they'd allow for some investigation of the voter roles.
The voter registration lists are a matter of public record. It's not that hard to get them. Don't you think that by now if illegals were being allowed to vote someone would have got a list and audited it and blown the lid off that scam?
I think it is you are fooling yourself on this subject.
Literally the only reason we are doing this is because the democrats are running out of US citizens that actually want to vote for them. So they're importing voters and pretty much breaking every rule on the books to do it. I'm not saying that if you're a democrat that you're a scummy person. You're probably my neighbor and I'm not mad at you. But the people pushing this at a high level are scummy people. They're used to buying elections and since that isn't working as well as it used to they're importing voters. Its pretty disgraceful.
[facepalm]Oh good God! [/facepalm] If non-citizens are voting in any significant numbers how hard can that be to prove? The Bush II administration made it a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they didn't find much. Instead we have Republicans pushing voter ID laws that fall most heavily on low income citizens (legal voters) who otherwise have no need for that kind of ID. They're desperate because they know the demographics are turning against them.
Most of that is stuff that would have happened regardless of who was President. Reagan (and Bush 1) also ballooned the national debt from about $908 billion in 1980 (32.5% of GDP) to $3,233 in 1990 (54.4% of GDP).
Ah, I see. You want me to do all the work while you sit there waving your hands claiming it's all wrong. It's easy to sit back and pick nits. Maybe I'll have some time tonight to dig in to it.
Anybody attempting to make a retort here, is politely requested to cite (include links to) at least two past global-warming predictions, that have actually materialized...
Well, two obvious ones are that sea level continues to rise and glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt.
Maybe you should be specific about what predictions you think haven't materialized. I'm guessing you either missed out on the time scales attached to those predictions or you're thinking of some twisted version of a prediction that was taken out of context. That said there are occasional poor statements by scientists but they aren't enough to overturn the vast majority of well considered statements.
Ugo Bardi at his Resource Crisis blog has a commentary on peak oil and the exploitation of unconventional sources. Bardi has done a number of posts lately on what he calls the Seneca Cliff. The name comes from a quote from the Roman Seneca:
"It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works if all things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid." Lucius Anneaus Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, n. 91
It's all pretty interesting and indicates our civilization is in for a hard fall in the not too distant future. It makes me glad I'm over 60 years old and probably won't have to face the worst of it.
They moved the Les Schwab HQ to Bend in 2008 after Les died in 2007 but they still have the big distribution center in Prineville at the bottom of the rimrocks.
Maybe so but why don't we try the limited cost economic model and see if it works since it wouldn't cost that much?
Hockey stick charts built on 'massaged' data and failed computer models unable to even accurately model past, known patterns is not 'science'. That's Alchemy, aka snake-oil.
Those are climate science denier memes that have no basis in reality. The "hockey stick" graph of temperatures has been reproduced over a dozen times by different groups using different proxies and different methodologies and they've all come up with essentially the same answer. Some one needs to come up with a graph based on science that seriously contradicts all of those studies before you can dismiss them.
Climate models are able to model the recent past very well. As you go further back in time it gets more difficult but even there they appear to be useful.
It was a big story on the front page of The Oregonian this morning. That's the first time I heard about it. If those guys are worried about having enough space they ought to put their data centers in Prineville. Tons of room out there.
Don't blame "more storms" on climate change - what happens when the US goes for a decade or two without getting hit by a hurricane? If climate change caused Hurricane Katrina, what's caused the lack of hurricanes since?
If you're only looking at hurricanes that strike the US mainland and not the overall number of hurricanes regardless of where they are you're doing it wrong. Where hurricanes hit is mostly a matter of chance.
If you look at the North Atlantic hurricane records since the exceptional year of 2005 (Katrina, Rita, Wilma) the years 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been considerably stronger than average.
You must have a pretty jaundiced view of human ingenuity to think we can't maintain our advanced civilization while reducing CO2 emissions at the same time. We got where we are by rising to challenges. There's no reason to think that won't continue.
Climate scientists are getting more right than they're getting wrong and often when they're wrong it's because they underestimated the effects of AGW.
The scientists are making their case and putting numbers behind it. They are saying human contributions are significant in some areas. Why don't you put some numbers behind your claim.
I think more proof is required before radically lowering standards of living and destroying national and world economies while plunging the poorest into even deeper levels of Hell.
That's a strawman, economic studies show it costs 1% or so of GWP to respond to AGW although it will get more expensive the longer we delay. How is that going to destroy the worlds economy?
How much of a change are we actually seeing and how much of a factor CO2 actually is and how much is due to humans are wide-open questions and far, far from settled.
If you want to discuss those you need to bring science to the table to back up your positions like the scientists do. Without that you have nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, poor baby. You can't always get what you want.
I gave you two examples, sea level rise and Arctic sea ice with plenty of information in the posts I cited for you to dig deeper if you cared to. At this point I'm doubting you have the scientific skills to do that and to understand what was said in the papers even of you read them. Hence your desire to have it all presented to you on a silver platter.
So, the alarmists of the past were wrong.
That's quite a leap to assume they are wrong just because I, a lowly SysAdmin can't satisfy your desire for specifics. If you want to say they're wrong it's up to you to show specifically why they are wrong. That's the way it works in science.
Of course the original IPCC report only came out 25 years ago so there weren't a lot of quantified predictions before that.
I believe in science and the scientific method. You can't hurt my feeling by attempting to point out holes in the science. If they're valid then that's an advancement of science.
So I'm turning the tables on you. See if you can hurt my feelings by pointing out an obvious hole in the science of AGW and give me a shot at tearing it down. Link to prediction vs line to refutation style. And I won't accept some silly article like that New American post. You need to provide something with scientific substantiation.
God you need a lot of hand holding don't you?
The legend in the sea ice graph refers to the studies they come from. For instance "GISS AOM" refers to the GISS Fast Atmosphere Ocean model. The predictions cover from 1900 to 2100 and the bold red line is what the actual observations show. They start in 1950 presumable because observations before then are too spotty to be very useful in this context. The bold black line is the ensemble mean of the different predictions. The chart is only about Arctic sea ice, nothing to do with Antarctic sea ice. There has been plenty of stuff written about the rise in Antarctic sea ice. I suggest you seek it out.
I'm tired of banging my head against your wall and you could obviously keep stringing me along forever. As the future unfolds you will find out if the scientists are generally right about this as I believe they are. The problem is that the changes from AGW are subtle from year to year and seldom do something that slaps you in the face. That makes it easy for someone like you to continue to pick nits but it doesn't change the underlying reality. Good luck.
Ok, here's another Real Climate post on comparisons between model projections and observations. In particular I direct your attention to this graph of Arctic sea ice models vs. observations.
Having a social security number has nothing to do with citizenship. Anyone who works legally in the US is eligible for a SSN. All of the non-citizens who are in the country legally working with a green card have SSNs. As an example I specifically know about, Nicolas Batum, a French citizen who plays for the Portland Trailblazers has a social security number. Another example would be a coworker of mine. He is originally from South Africa but found his wife in the US. He became a citizen about 6 years ago but he had been living and working in the US for a decade before that and he had a SSN long before he became a naturalized citizen.
So what is this paperwork that is only given to citizens that Obama is planning to give them? The only paperwork I'm aware of that is given to citizens is a birth certificate showing you were born in the US or that one of your parents is a citizen or naturalization papers such as were given to my coworker from South Africa.
I await your statistical proof of that statement.
Like I said why should I do your work for you? The citations are the IPCC reports. They're available online. Look it up yourself.
Ok, here a Real Climate post on Sea Level in the 5th IPCC Report. Figure 3a compares model projections of sea level rise to observations and since the 1950s the observations have been consistently above the mode projections. At the bottom of the post are references to the scientific papers the information was gleaned from. In each IPCC report since the second the sea level predictions have been higher than in the previous report and yet observations continue to be higher still. I guess you may classify those as failed predictions but they failed because it's worse than we predicted, not better.
It always surprises me how people can be so unskeptical of an article like your New American article. The AC did a decent job of addressing it but I'll comment on a couple of the points.
Regarding the global cooling predicted in the 1970's between 1965 and 1979 there were 7 published papers predicting global cooling and 42 predicting global warming. Global warming wins 6:1.
The Himalayan Glaciers melting by 2035 was a failure of proof reading by the relevant experts. The error was in the WG II report and if you look in the WG I report where the real science is laid out you would see nothing to support that.
As to Antarctic ice, yes the sea ice has grown (but not as much as Arctic sea ice has fallen) but the ice sheet, the ice sitting on the Antarctic continent lost and average of 70 Gt/year from 1992 to 2011.
Enough for now.
How do you know that isn't what they did in this case?
As to evidence... I am apparently talking to someone that doesn't read the news.
Type "Obama Amnesty Judge" into your search engine of choice. You'll get a whole page of links referring to Obama's bs being so completely out of control that the US Judiciary is putting the brakes on it. Which is f'ing impressive because they rarely involve themselves in such matters unless the government goes WAY beyond its authority.
Where in all of that do you get that anyone is granting citizenship to any of them? Amnesty from deportation is not tantamount to granting citizenship. In a situation where resources are limited the President has discretion to direct the funds to where he thinks they'll do the most good. Did you know that Obama has deported more people than Bush did before him?
As to auditing voter registration lists, they are audited but not by the government. They're audited by private citizens and they do find fun names on their like "Mickey Mouse" or dead people that have been voting some how for years.
Evidence? Without that you're just making unsubstantiated accusations. I agree that there are dead people on the voter rolls that should be purged and occasionally a spouse has been caught trying to vote for their recently deceased spouse but it doesn't happen often enough to be much of a problem.
The system is not pristine but it's not currently overrun by fraud as you seem to think either. If you want to convince me otherwise you'll have to give me specific evidence backed up by data that can be verified. Good luck.
Well, yes but it wasn't some sort of voter fraud conspiracy, it's just what happened given the demographics of the precincts.
First, who said they won't be citizens? If you make anyone that crosses the border a citizen then they can vote.
What evidence do you have that is happening? It takes far more than crossing the border to become a citizen of the US (unless you are born here of course).
If the democrats really didn't want illegals to vote then they'd allow for some investigation of the voter roles.
The voter registration lists are a matter of public record. It's not that hard to get them. Don't you think that by now if illegals were being allowed to vote someone would have got a list and audited it and blown the lid off that scam?
I think it is you are fooling yourself on this subject.
A quick check with Snopes puts the lie to your claims.
Snopes on 2012 voter fraud.
Literally the only reason we are doing this is because the democrats are running out of US citizens that actually want to vote for them. So they're importing voters and pretty much breaking every rule on the books to do it. I'm not saying that if you're a democrat that you're a scummy person. You're probably my neighbor and I'm not mad at you. But the people pushing this at a high level are scummy people. They're used to buying elections and since that isn't working as well as it used to they're importing voters. Its pretty disgraceful.
[facepalm]Oh good God! [/facepalm] If non-citizens are voting in any significant numbers how hard can that be to prove? The Bush II administration made it a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they didn't find much. Instead we have Republicans pushing voter ID laws that fall most heavily on low income citizens (legal voters) who otherwise have no need for that kind of ID. They're desperate because they know the demographics are turning against them.
Most of that is stuff that would have happened regardless of who was President. Reagan (and Bush 1) also ballooned the national debt from about $908 billion in 1980 (32.5% of GDP) to $3,233 in 1990 (54.4% of GDP).
Ah, I see. You want me to do all the work while you sit there waving your hands claiming it's all wrong. It's easy to sit back and pick nits. Maybe I'll have some time tonight to dig in to it.
Sea level rise.
Antarctic ice sheet mass balance.
Greenland ice sheet mass balance. (PDF)
World wide glacier facts and figures.
Unless you're willing to specifically name something they got wrong how can I evaluate your claim that the predictions haven't materialized?
Anybody attempting to make a retort here, is politely requested to cite (include links to) at least two past global-warming predictions, that have actually materialized...
Well, two obvious ones are that sea level continues to rise and glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt.
Maybe you should be specific about what predictions you think haven't materialized. I'm guessing you either missed out on the time scales attached to those predictions or you're thinking of some twisted version of a prediction that was taken out of context. That said there are occasional poor statements by scientists but they aren't enough to overturn the vast majority of well considered statements.
Ugo Bardi at his Resource Crisis blog has a commentary on peak oil and the exploitation of unconventional sources. Bardi has done a number of posts lately on what he calls the Seneca Cliff. The name comes from a quote from the Roman Seneca:
"It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works if all things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid." Lucius Anneaus Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, n. 91
It's all pretty interesting and indicates our civilization is in for a hard fall in the not too distant future. It makes me glad I'm over 60 years old and probably won't have to face the worst of it.
There's an Apple DC there too, isn't there?
They moved the Les Schwab HQ to Bend in 2008 after Les died in 2007 but they still have the big distribution center in Prineville at the bottom of the rimrocks.
Other economic studies disagree.
Maybe so but why don't we try the limited cost economic model and see if it works since it wouldn't cost that much?
Hockey stick charts built on 'massaged' data and failed computer models unable to even accurately model past, known patterns is not 'science'. That's Alchemy, aka snake-oil.
Those are climate science denier memes that have no basis in reality. The "hockey stick" graph of temperatures has been reproduced over a dozen times by different groups using different proxies and different methodologies and they've all come up with essentially the same answer. Some one needs to come up with a graph based on science that seriously contradicts all of those studies before you can dismiss them.
Climate models are able to model the recent past very well. As you go further back in time it gets more difficult but even there they appear to be useful.
What makes you pathetic is that you are unable (or unwilling) to understand why CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing.
It was a big story on the front page of The Oregonian this morning. That's the first time I heard about it. If those guys are worried about having enough space they ought to put their data centers in Prineville. Tons of room out there.
Don't blame "more storms" on climate change - what happens when the US goes for a decade or two without getting hit by a hurricane? If climate change caused Hurricane Katrina, what's caused the lack of hurricanes since?
If you're only looking at hurricanes that strike the US mainland and not the overall number of hurricanes regardless of where they are you're doing it wrong. Where hurricanes hit is mostly a matter of chance.
If you look at the North Atlantic hurricane records since the exceptional year of 2005 (Katrina, Rita, Wilma) the years 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been considerably stronger than average.
You must have a pretty jaundiced view of human ingenuity to think we can't maintain our advanced civilization while reducing CO2 emissions at the same time. We got where we are by rising to challenges. There's no reason to think that won't continue.
Climate scientists are getting more right than they're getting wrong and often when they're wrong it's because they underestimated the effects of AGW.
The scientists are making their case and putting numbers behind it. They are saying human contributions are significant in some areas. Why don't you put some numbers behind your claim.
I think more proof is required before radically lowering standards of living and destroying national and world economies while plunging the poorest into even deeper levels of Hell.
That's a strawman, economic studies show it costs 1% or so of GWP to respond to AGW although it will get more expensive the longer we delay. How is that going to destroy the worlds economy?
How much of a change are we actually seeing and how much of a factor CO2 actually is and how much is due to humans are wide-open questions and far, far from settled.
If you want to discuss those you need to bring science to the table to back up your positions like the scientists do. Without that you have nothing.