When's the last time you put on your hiking boots and explored somethign on this planet?
Today. I do a lot of stuff that involves exploring, and not all are safe according to safety culture. Life is too short to sit still, and await the inevitable. There is a big, beautiful, and interesting world out there. Did some exploring in the Everglades recently, as well as hiking along the Gulf of Mexico.Went pier fishing. Another hike to watch and count manatees. Closer to home, I've been enjoying getting into the local mountains, although some of the higher elevations were suffering from ice accumulation - it's certainly all gone now, so after a project to create an pneumatic antenna launcher - finished now, I'll be back exploring tomorrow.
When was the last time you travelled to another country and explored the forest there?
That's been a little longer, as in a few years ago. Went to the Algonquin Provincial Park, Stunning beauty, but be careful where you hike. Bogs can be very deep and deceptively solidly covered. Before that was a week or so around the Georgian Bay. The lenticular glacier scraped rocks are very beautiful.
The mental problems and skewed world-view that make you say these things are beyond comprehension, therefore no further communication is possible.
My sincere condolences to you. Stay warm and safe.
Never buy from a company that releases a product and then pushes it.
So you never by from any company, ever?
Depends on the pushing. I have some software that has been asking me to update it for a while now. NO biggie, just a nag screen once a week or so.
But Microsoft and their Windows 10 policy is just way too aggressive. I know of a couple cases where the owners of the computer tell me that W10 installed itself, without inut on their part. Now I'm a little skeptical, but concerned. I have a Windows 7 install on an iMac that is running in bootcamp. Microsoft took the liberty of downloading the W10 files, and is bugging the shit out of me every time I boot.
I might have even updated, but it's a mid 2011 iMac, and bootcamp for W10 doesn't exist for it. So I'm sitting there waiting to see if it nails me.
If it ends up updating itself, It'll hose the system.
There's a lot to be said with playing nice, and Microsoft isn't
It's not Windows' fault for not him disabling System Restore.
Yeah, yeah, nothing is ever Windows fault. What has been done to you that you would have the ridiculous reaction that Windows can fuck up your computer, and it is your fault?
There is something so fundamentally wrong with what a fucked up system Windows is, and the willinglenes for it's users to put up with them screwing up their computers.
I think that Windows 10 should be renamed Windows Stockholm Syndrome Edition.
Wow, so it should be easy to convince venture capitalists to fund you, right? Well, go for it!
Why? Govenrment has had a long history of funding exploration. Lewis and Clark were funded by President Jefferson in 1803. Plenty of others have throughout history. Mental masturbation with images of Ayn Rand in your head notwithstanding, there seems to be a reason for it.
And we'd still be there if we stopped to do a cost-benefit analysis of every new idea.
Sometimes humans just do for the hell of it, and why shouldn't we?
Exploration is fun. Robotic exploration can be cool, but I want a human presence off earth, not some sort of weird and cowardly "Its too expensive!"or "Its too dangerous!" bull shit.
But there are a lot of people who want to stay in their metaphorical caves. But risk averse people shouldn't be running the show.
Exploration for the hell of it is as good a reason as any to send humans to Mars and the Asteroids, and the moon. Let's roll.
Because, just like with most everything else we do, there's a potential future benefit that is worth more than the cost. Otherwise we'd still be living in small tribes and gathering nuts and berries while following herds of animals around.
We'd all be huddled in the caves, because we'd have built robotic hunters who would bring things back to us because we poor little meatbags dare not venture outside of the caves because it is dangerous and expensive.
A meatbag is too precious to accept any risk, or any danger.
sarcasm off.
I am of course being facetious. I simply find the "Silly humans, space is not for you, it's for robots!" attitude exactly equivalent to the concept of never daring to leave the tropics because its too expensive to build heated dwellings, or wear warm clothing., because it has a cost.
Humans have altered their surroundings to suit themselves for a long time. Now? I think at least in my country, many of us have turned into cowards.
I really have no problem at all with sending robots places. But unless there is an off-earth human presence eventually, I support an annual budget of $0.00 for robotic exploration.
It's almost like the old Soviet Union's fixation on Lysenkoism.
Ideology based science FTW?
Oh dear, it looks like this post is getting the bejabbers moderated out of it. A lot of people are calling it a troll.
Allow me to explain.
There are times, and there are groups, that allow their ideology to get in the way things that others declare as the truth,
Everyone is going to get their Ox gored here soon, so deal with it.
Lysenkoism was a politically motivated campaign against genetics and scientific agriculture. It was based on Lamarkian inheritance, and rejected Mendelian Inheritance, and utterly rejected Natural selection as professed by Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
It held that plants could transmute into each other, and that rather than natural selection as a process, natural cooperation was the norm.
This outlook was for some reason very attractive to the ideals of the Communist party there. Stalin agreed with Lysenkoism, and it is interesting to note that some 3 thousand mainstrem biologists were sent to prison and died there, as well as scientific research in biology already done was destroyed, and further research banned in the field. Other related fields were either ideologically affected or banned, such as neurophysiology and cellular biology, in fact, any biological field that did not agree with the ideological based "facts" of Lysenkoism. Soviet Genetics remained in this state until the death of Stalin in 1953.
This situation may or may not shed some light on the repeated crop failures of the period
It was formally ended in 1964 after a huge amount of damage.
Now we come to some other idealism based fallacies. In the US, there are a fair number of people who ideologically favor a universe created in 4004 b.c.e, and also reject evolution and it's biological underpinnings. From time to time, they have tried to work their ideology into the classroom, however, and especially since their ideology is based upon a particular interpretation of their religious documents, they have failed do far. The latest version of this ideal based effort was in Dover PA, when a School board tried to implement science courses containing religious theory, eventually losing in court.
Now finally, we come to the Global warming issue. While certainly not as deadly as the Soviet Union's treatment of Biologists, there is a lot of ideological push against a concept as simple as the energy stored in the atmosphere and it's relation to certain components of the atmosphere.
Examples of this are a bit silly, like Florida's Governor Rick Scott banning the words Climate Change, Global Warming, and Sustainability, as well as banning the words 'sea level rise, and replacing it with "nuisance flooding". http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
In 2012 North Carolina passed a bill placing a 4 year ban on acknowledging that sea levels were rising.The Governor did not sign it into law. http://www.ecology.com/2012/07...
In 2012 Arizona attempted to abolish sustainability efforts and attempted to make it a crime for cities to endorse or implement the UN agenda 21 principles of sustainable development.. Alabama, Kansas, and Louisiana attempted to as well. Tennessee passed a resolution condemning them. Seems these folk
IT'S AN ACRONYM IF YOU PRONOUNCE IT AS A WORD, LIKE NASA
IT'S AN INITIALISM IF YOU READ THE LETTERS, LIKE CIA OR FBI
BLARGARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGL!!!!!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
I made the wise choice or mistake to read the paper.
The paper really has nothing to do with glacier science, and is chock full of gobbledygook. Lots of the literary triples. And almost nothing about glaciers, except for some really odd stuff about some artist submerges a phone line, and people could call the glacier and listen to it -no science mentioned, just calling the glacier.
It even compares satellite images as masculine oriented pornography.
Regardless, if you read through it, it is actually anti-science. It spends a lot of time quoting from feminists fiction stories, here is one:
Uzma Aslam Khan’s (2010) short story ‘Ice, Mating’, for example, explores religious, nationalistic, and colonial themes in Pakistan, while also featur- ing intense sexual symbolism of glaciers acting upon a landscape. Khan writes: ‘It was Farhana who told me that Pakistan has more glaciers than anywhere outside the poles. And I’ve seen them! I’ve even seen them fuck!’ (Khan, 2010: 102, emphasis in original).
If this is not a joke, or a mishmash put together by an updated version of some automated term paper writing program, well that's just sad. It sure as hell isn't science.
Considering that what the FBI wants is listed in the court order, you should be able to find it on your own without issue. I guess you think the FBI is somehow keeping their request secret?
I suppose you could just read the court order, but maybe that is too hard? The FBI already stated that they don't want a generic backdoor, nor do they want access to the backdoor, but I guess you know so much more than I do.
right, they just want access when they want it, with nothing hindering the process.
All of your "solutions are actual backdoors. So now if you want to say thy don't want backdoors you have to tell us why you were wrog when you first told us we were wrong. You're digging a pretty deep hole for yourself.
Um, have you read anything at all about this case? No one has asked Apple to insert a backdoor.
The FBI has asked Apple to write a program that:
1. Remains in memory
Already an issue. This means that Apple has to remove one of it's features. No wiping the phone
2. Only Apple has access to
Bwahahhahahahaha! Yes, only apple will ever have access to it. Spare me your self righteous hmm's seriously? Seriously. Looks like the perfect scenario, because Nothing that is ever a secret gets out. Never ever happened so far. Right?
3. Allows the FBI to use unlimited guesses on the PIN
Sounds like a fine brute force...... get ready for it....... backdoor
4. Allows the FBI to use a custom pin entry through the Thunderbolt port
You gotta be shitting me don't ya? This is doubleplusgood talk. Let's just not call any of this stuff a "backdoor", make up your own name if you like, but if there's a program written so that the phones can be accessed by apple, it can be accessed by others. And if a brute force attack can access the phone, and let's face it, Numbers only makes for a faily limited set of choices - Its delivering the keys to the kingdom to just about anyone. Because once again, if Apple provides it to one group, other groups can find and utilize it.
This is one of those things that everyone thinks, but seems completely unreasonable
Right it's entirely unreasonable to believe that unforeseen failures can occur those things never happen. It's been decades since the last time a car had a re-call because it caused a dangerous and possibly fatal failure. It's not like people, birds, and other wild life have ever ran out in front of cars without warning and I have never seen a new car broken down on the side of the road.
You touch upon an important thing. It seems to be that the Autonomous worshippers believe that there is no hardware in a vehicle - only software that will apparently be the first 100 percent flaw free software ever.
The idea that a human driver will just "take over" control in an emergency is incredibly stupid and naive. Think about how many accidents are caused by drunk drivers. And most of them are caused because drunk drivers have impaired reaction ability -- and a few tenths of a second is an issue.
To listen to the proponents of autonomous cars speak, people get in a fatal accident every time they get behind the wheel, and we're all dead now.
Spare us, just a little, eh? Untold millions of miles are driven by meatbags without incident, and unless autonomous cars are never ever going to fail, never ever going to ever be involved in any incident forever, at best, they are merely an incremental improvement in safety.
Not to mention how uncomfortable it will be to bump knees with the other passenger. I'm not sure how much room they think they have inside the car but very few cars on the road now have the interior space to effectively pull this off.
Even if your premise is true, You don't need side stories to be against this. If a backdoor is planted in the software that allows Law Enforcement to bypass the security features of the system, it does indeed make it easier for Law Enforcement do dig into a device. It also makes it easier for some folks other than Law Enforcement to dig into your device.
Looking over my iphone I don't really have anything that Law enforcement would be interested in - however, I really really really do not want the bad guys having that very same access.
note: I don't actually want anyone snooping in my phone at all, so let's not have the semi-obligitory "First they came for....." sillieness folks, mKay?
Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.
Let us keep in mind that Goddard's "Debunking" of AGW isn't even based on surface temperatures.
And what is interesting is that instead of him asking "Why", he just decided My dat is right, everyone elses is wrong."
Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere.
Someone who understands the basic bottom of the barrel truth.
Expressed another way, Human activity has added about 1.6 watts per square meter since 1750. Hey, that doen't sound like much does it?
Until we figure out that is 800 TeraWatts.
I don't know about the deniers, but I can envision 800 TeraWatts. And my reaction is Holy Crap!
1. If there is less snow this year, it proves warming.
2. If there is more snow this year, it proves warming.
Well, it depends on where you are at. Have you taken into account shifting weather patterns where warm moisture laden air ttravelling northward runs into arctic air at a higher latitude than normal?
Think Gulf of Mexico air travelling northward through the Appalachian Mountains and east coast.
It is very possible for my area - which is north of the US snow belt, to get more snow as the belt shifts northward. It will be warmer, but any temperature in the low 30's or near 0 degrees depending on your measurement system - to get dumped on by virtue of that damp air making it further north that it used to go before colliding with the Arctic air.
Slashdot Mirror
When's the last time you put on your hiking boots and explored somethign on this planet?
Today. I do a lot of stuff that involves exploring, and not all are safe according to safety culture. Life is too short to sit still, and await the inevitable. There is a big, beautiful, and interesting world out there. Did some exploring in the Everglades recently, as well as hiking along the Gulf of Mexico.Went pier fishing. Another hike to watch and count manatees. Closer to home, I've been enjoying getting into the local mountains, although some of the higher elevations were suffering from ice accumulation - it's certainly all gone now, so after a project to create an pneumatic antenna launcher - finished now, I'll be back exploring tomorrow.
When was the last time you travelled to another country and explored the forest there?
That's been a little longer, as in a few years ago. Went to the Algonquin Provincial Park, Stunning beauty, but be careful where you hike. Bogs can be very deep and deceptively solidly covered. Before that was a week or so around the Georgian Bay. The lenticular glacier scraped rocks are very beautiful.
The mental problems and skewed world-view that make you say these things are beyond comprehension, therefore no further communication is possible.
My sincere condolences to you. Stay warm and safe.
Never buy from a company that releases a product and then pushes it.
So you never by from any company, ever?
Depends on the pushing. I have some software that has been asking me to update it for a while now. NO biggie, just a nag screen once a week or so.
But Microsoft and their Windows 10 policy is just way too aggressive. I know of a couple cases where the owners of the computer tell me that W10 installed itself, without inut on their part. Now I'm a little skeptical, but concerned. I have a Windows 7 install on an iMac that is running in bootcamp. Microsoft took the liberty of downloading the W10 files, and is bugging the shit out of me every time I boot.
I might have even updated, but it's a mid 2011 iMac, and bootcamp for W10 doesn't exist for it. So I'm sitting there waiting to see if it nails me.
If it ends up updating itself, It'll hose the system.
There's a lot to be said with playing nice, and Microsoft isn't
It's not Windows' fault for not him disabling System Restore.
Yeah, yeah, nothing is ever Windows fault. What has been done to you that you would have the ridiculous reaction that Windows can fuck up your computer, and it is your fault?
There is something so fundamentally wrong with what a fucked up system Windows is, and the willinglenes for it's users to put up with them screwing up their computers.
I think that Windows 10 should be renamed Windows Stockholm Syndrome Edition.
Wow, so it should be easy to convince venture capitalists to fund you, right? Well, go for it!
Why? Govenrment has had a long history of funding exploration. Lewis and Clark were funded by President Jefferson in 1803. Plenty of others have throughout history. Mental masturbation with images of Ayn Rand in your head notwithstanding, there seems to be a reason for it.
And we'd still be there if we stopped to do a cost-benefit analysis of every new idea.
Sometimes humans just do for the hell of it, and why shouldn't we?
Exploration is fun. Robotic exploration can be cool, but I want a human presence off earth, not some sort of weird and cowardly "Its too expensive!"or "Its too dangerous!" bull shit.
But there are a lot of people who want to stay in their metaphorical caves. But risk averse people shouldn't be running the show. Exploration for the hell of it is as good a reason as any to send humans to Mars and the Asteroids, and the moon. Let's roll.
Because, just like with most everything else we do, there's a potential future benefit that is worth more than the cost. Otherwise we'd still be living in small tribes and gathering nuts and berries while following herds of animals around.
We'd all be huddled in the caves, because we'd have built robotic hunters who would bring things back to us because we poor little meatbags dare not venture outside of the caves because it is dangerous and expensive. A meatbag is too precious to accept any risk, or any danger.
sarcasm off. I am of course being facetious. I simply find the "Silly humans, space is not for you, it's for robots!" attitude exactly equivalent to the concept of never daring to leave the tropics because its too expensive to build heated dwellings, or wear warm clothing., because it has a cost.
Humans have altered their surroundings to suit themselves for a long time. Now? I think at least in my country, many of us have turned into cowards.
I really have no problem at all with sending robots places. But unless there is an off-earth human presence eventually, I support an annual budget of $0.00 for robotic exploration.
HAH! I didn't, but I'm glad you did.
Now go to hell you punning bastard.
Remember, a good pun is it's own re-word.
Everyone noticed, no-one thought it was funny.
Sensational!
Cost is the object, why send anything at all?
No one has noticed the awesome joke "sensational" results?
It's almost like the old Soviet Union's fixation on Lysenkoism.
Ideology based science FTW?
Oh dear, it looks like this post is getting the bejabbers moderated out of it. A lot of people are calling it a troll.
Allow me to explain.
There are times, and there are groups, that allow their ideology to get in the way things that others declare as the truth,
Everyone is going to get their Ox gored here soon, so deal with it.
Lysenkoism was a politically motivated campaign against genetics and scientific agriculture. It was based on Lamarkian inheritance, and rejected Mendelian Inheritance, and utterly rejected Natural selection as professed by Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/L...
It held that plants could transmute into each other, and that rather than natural selection as a process, natural cooperation was the norm.
This outlook was for some reason very attractive to the ideals of the Communist party there. Stalin agreed with Lysenkoism, and it is interesting to note that some 3 thousand mainstrem biologists were sent to prison and died there, as well as scientific research in biology already done was destroyed, and further research banned in the field. Other related fields were either ideologically affected or banned, such as neurophysiology and cellular biology, in fact, any biological field that did not agree with the ideological based "facts" of Lysenkoism. Soviet Genetics remained in this state until the death of Stalin in 1953.
This situation may or may not shed some light on the repeated crop failures of the period
It was formally ended in 1964 after a huge amount of damage.
Now we come to some other idealism based fallacies. In the US, there are a fair number of people who ideologically favor a universe created in 4004 b.c.e, and also reject evolution and it's biological underpinnings. From time to time, they have tried to work their ideology into the classroom, however, and especially since their ideology is based upon a particular interpretation of their religious documents, they have failed do far. The latest version of this ideal based effort was in Dover PA, when a School board tried to implement science courses containing religious theory, eventually losing in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... In Georgia, they wanted to dismantle evolution by using the colloquial version of theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now finally, we come to the Global warming issue. While certainly not as deadly as the Soviet Union's treatment of Biologists, there is a lot of ideological push against a concept as simple as the energy stored in the atmosphere and it's relation to certain components of the atmosphere.
Examples of this are a bit silly, like Florida's Governor Rick Scott banning the words Climate Change, Global Warming, and Sustainability, as well as banning the words 'sea level rise, and replacing it with "nuisance flooding". http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
In 2012 North Carolina passed a bill placing a 4 year ban on acknowledging that sea levels were rising.The Governor did not sign it into law. http://www.ecology.com/2012/07...
In 2012 Arizona attempted to abolish sustainability efforts and attempted to make it a crime for cities to endorse or implement the UN agenda 21 principles of sustainable development.. Alabama, Kansas, and Louisiana attempted to as well. Tennessee passed a resolution condemning them. Seems these folk
IT'S AN ACRONYM IF YOU PRONOUNCE IT AS A WORD, LIKE NASA
IT'S AN INITIALISM IF YOU READ THE LETTERS, LIKE CIA OR FBI
BLARGARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGLARGL!!!!!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Ya gotta stop after the third espresso!
The paper really has nothing to do with glacier science, and is chock full of gobbledygook. Lots of the literary triples. And almost nothing about glaciers, except for some really odd stuff about some artist submerges a phone line, and people could call the glacier and listen to it -no science mentioned, just calling the glacier.
It even compares satellite images as masculine oriented pornography.
Regardless, if you read through it, it is actually anti-science. It spends a lot of time quoting from feminists fiction stories, here is one:
Uzma Aslam Khan’s (2010) short story ‘Ice, Mating’, for example, explores religious, nationalistic, and colonial themes in Pakistan, while also featur- ing intense sexual symbolism of glaciers acting upon a landscape. Khan writes: ‘It was Farhana who told me that Pakistan has more glaciers than anywhere outside the poles. And I’ve seen them! I’ve even seen them fuck!’ (Khan, 2010: 102, emphasis in original).
If this is not a joke, or a mishmash put together by an updated version of some automated term paper writing program, well that's just sad. It sure as hell isn't science.
Considering that what the FBI wants is listed in the court order, you should be able to find it on your own without issue. I guess you think the FBI is somehow keeping their request secret?
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...
I suppose you could just read the court order, but maybe that is too hard? The FBI already stated that they don't want a generic backdoor, nor do they want access to the backdoor, but I guess you know so much more than I do.
right, they just want access when they want it, with nothing hindering the process.
All of your "solutions are actual backdoors. So now if you want to say thy don't want backdoors you have to tell us why you were wrog when you first told us we were wrong. You're digging a pretty deep hole for yourself.
Um, have you read anything at all about this case? No one has asked Apple to insert a backdoor.
The FBI has asked Apple to write a program that:
1. Remains in memory
Already an issue. This means that Apple has to remove one of it's features. No wiping the phone
2. Only Apple has access to
Bwahahhahahahaha! Yes, only apple will ever have access to it. Spare me your self righteous hmm's seriously? Seriously. Looks like the perfect scenario, because Nothing that is ever a secret gets out. Never ever happened so far. Right?
3. Allows the FBI to use unlimited guesses on the PIN
Sounds like a fine brute force ...... get ready for it....... backdoor
4. Allows the FBI to use a custom pin entry through the Thunderbolt port
You gotta be shitting me don't ya? This is doubleplusgood talk. Let's just not call any of this stuff a "backdoor", make up your own name if you like, but if there's a program written so that the phones can be accessed by apple, it can be accessed by others. And if a brute force attack can access the phone, and let's face it, Numbers only makes for a faily limited set of choices - Its delivering the keys to the kingdom to just about anyone. Because once again, if Apple provides it to one group, other groups can find and utilize it.
This is one of those things that everyone thinks, but seems completely unreasonable
Right it's entirely unreasonable to believe that unforeseen failures can occur those things never happen. It's been decades since the last time a car had a re-call because it caused a dangerous and possibly fatal failure. It's not like people, birds, and other wild life have ever ran out in front of cars without warning and I have never seen a new car broken down on the side of the road.
You touch upon an important thing. It seems to be that the Autonomous worshippers believe that there is no hardware in a vehicle - only software that will apparently be the first 100 percent flaw free software ever.
The idea that a human driver will just "take over" control in an emergency is incredibly stupid and naive. Think about how many accidents are caused by drunk drivers. And most of them are caused because drunk drivers have impaired reaction ability -- and a few tenths of a second is an issue.
To listen to the proponents of autonomous cars speak, people get in a fatal accident every time they get behind the wheel, and we're all dead now.
Spare us, just a little, eh? Untold millions of miles are driven by meatbags without incident, and unless autonomous cars are never ever going to fail, never ever going to ever be involved in any incident forever, at best, they are merely an incremental improvement in safety.
Not to mention how uncomfortable it will be to bump knees with the other passenger. I'm not sure how much room they think they have inside the car but very few cars on the road now have the interior space to effectively pull this off.
Could be great for car secks tho'!
Ah, yes, where PI is equal to 3, E as well, and where Euler's identity is but an approximation!
If global warming was false, it would say so in the bible.
Looking over my iphone I don't really have anything that Law enforcement would be interested in - however, I really really really do not want the bad guys having that very same access.
note: I don't actually want anyone snooping in my phone at all, so let's not have the semi-obligitory "First they came for....." sillieness folks, mKay?
No need. They'll wind up doing what Harper did here in Canada, just have all the historical data deleted/shredded/dumpstered.
Then it's never above or below "average".
It's almost like the old Soviet Union's fixation on Lysenkoism.
Ideology based science FTW?
Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.
Let us keep in mind that Goddard's "Debunking" of AGW isn't even based on surface temperatures.
And what is interesting is that instead of him asking "Why", he just decided My dat is right, everyone elses is wrong."
Ain't necessarily so. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Goddard has been thorougly debunked and quite often:
http://rankexploits.com/musing...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
http://reallysciency.blogspot....
https://rhinohide.wordpress.co...
We can read an actual paper about his issue : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibl...
Enough of this stuff. It won't change any deniers minds even if they continue to spew long debunked Proofs of their position.
Global warming doesn't mean the climate gets warmer every day of every year; it means there are more total joules of thermal energy in the atmosphere.
Someone who understands the basic bottom of the barrel truth.
Expressed another way, Human activity has added about 1.6 watts per square meter since 1750. Hey, that doen't sound like much does it? Until we figure out that is 800 TeraWatts.
I don't know about the deniers, but I can envision 800 TeraWatts. And my reaction is Holy Crap!
That's the old way of looking at it. Now it's:
1. If there is less snow this year, it proves warming.
2. If there is more snow this year, it proves warming.
Well, it depends on where you are at. Have you taken into account shifting weather patterns where warm moisture laden air ttravelling northward runs into arctic air at a higher latitude than normal?
Think Gulf of Mexico air travelling northward through the Appalachian Mountains and east coast.
It is very possible for my area - which is north of the US snow belt, to get more snow as the belt shifts northward. It will be warmer, but any temperature in the low 30's or near 0 degrees depending on your measurement system - to get dumped on by virtue of that damp air making it further north that it used to go before colliding with the Arctic air.
Question: "How much snow did you shovel over the last decade?"
Answer: "Too much!"
For some people, any at all is too much.