Of course, if the Forbes link is too "right wing" for you, you might prefer the get the 97% bubble popped by a left-leaning source
I'd hardly describe Richard Tol as a "left leaning source". Do you think that leftiness is catching? That just by getting published in the Guardian you become a lefty?
Richard Tol disagrees with the 97% figure, but what does he think the real figure is?
97% of anthropologists thought piltdown man was the missing link and he turned out to be a human skull attached to a monkey jaw bone. The real missing link ended up being found by a guy those assholes mocked.
Untrue in all particulars.
Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged by some researchers. [...] G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."
The catch 22 is in order to be a climate scientest you have to basically sign on to beleiving in AGW, so it is a bit like saying 97% of Catholic preists believe in god.
So Judith Curry is unemployed? John Christy is no longer at UAH? Richard Lindzen was forced to retire?
So, we don't have a parallel where we can go run experiments, although I have had some interesting discussions with people about using Mars for this purpose.
-- Dr William Collins, before the American Physical Society climate change statement review subcommittee.
There are 99 comments as I write this. Most filled with desperate and condescending excuses why this is no in any way indicative that the Church of the Global Warming is in danger of having it orthodoxy overturned.
What part of Global warming do you not understand?
This shows that local warming can be caused by wind bringing heat from somewhere else.
I assume that you are bright enough to understand that such a mechanism cannot explain global warming. On this planet we obey the law of conservation of energy.
I left Gnome when they insisted on making the volume controls vertical instead of horizontal (like everyone else). Which wouldn't have been such a big deal if that also didn't reverse the scroll wheel direction you had to use to change the volume. If you're out to annoy your users, don't be surprised when you're out of users shortly...
Odd.
If I move the mouse over the little loudspeaker icon I scroll down to reduce the volume, scroll up to increase the volume.
If I click on the icon I see a horizontal slider for the volume.
Aha, but you're right - in gnome control center the scroll wheel works backwards.
"Linux noobs generally do NOT use Debian."...and non noob Debian users generally do NOT use a GUI. So, what's the issue?
I don't think I'm a noob (programmer since 1977, Unix user since 1990) but I use a GUI on my Debian workstations. Not on the servers of course.
And, in my experience, neither Gnome nor KDE are particularly robust. I got tired of fighting graphics drivers and configurations, and have XFCE installed to run those things which simply won't work without.
What are these "configurations" of which you speak?
Exit row seating usually offers a bit more leg room with no reclining seats in front of you. It used to be free, now many airlines charge for it. Therer is no shortage of takers.
Unfortunately it's also often off-limits for minors - my 16 year old son is not allowed to book exit row seats, and he's a hell of a lot bigger than me.
I kinda like the idea of Linux/systemd being a full featured mini computer OS while Linux/SysV (or better Linux/OpenRC is more like a traditional lightweight Unix).
the natural carbon cycle deals out no where near the amount of CO2 humans do
What the hell are you talking about? Estimates for natural emissions are around 150 billion tonnes per year. That's thirty times Human emissions.
True.
And that estimate is from the IPCC so it's likely the figures have been carefully massaged down to make Human emissions appear bigger than they are.
Oh dear, you were doing so well until you had to put your conspiracy theorists hat on.
No, you dummy, the estimate isn't "from the IPCC". The IPCC don't deal in estimates. They just report the published science. That's where the estimates of the the size of the carbon cycle come from.
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
You don't know that it has no long-term effects on the trend. ENSO hasn't been understood long enough. THEORETICALLY, it may be true, but it sure as hell isn't proven. Even now it is not well understood... which was part of my point.
The "theory" that says that ENSO has no long term effect is conservation of mass/energy.
I know you guys like to imagine that your vague hand-waving trumps basic science, but that's going a little far, don't you think?
If ENSO cannot be predicted to any great degree (it cannot), yet it has a major effect on climate models, and now another effect is found that is claimed to have a far greater effect than ENSO, what then?
ENSO has no long--term effect on climate. ENSO is a short term variation.
(People who obsess about ENSO seem not to have heard of conservation of energy).
please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science.
From the commentary:
Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after careful comparison of simulated internal climate variability and climate model forcings with observations from the past two decades
Recent papers have investigated this and found that when either observed ENSO conditions are forced on the model, or model runs are picked whose simulated ENSO matches observed ENSO there is better agreement with observed temperatures.
By the way, the models don't just overestimate warming since 1997ish, they also underestimate it before 1997.
Slashdot Mirror
Well. Sandra Bullock doesn't look like Indian Bullocks. Besides, in India bullocks are male, and usually castrated.
I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, but about Sandra Bullock...
You've never heard of xconfig? You are a noob.
I've heard of it.
Fuck, I used to write modelines based on the manuals of old CRT monitors.
But I haven't had to touch it for years now. Everything just works.
Of course, if the Forbes link is too "right wing" for you, you might prefer the get the 97% bubble popped by a left-leaning source
I'd hardly describe Richard Tol as a "left leaning source". Do you think that leftiness is catching? That just by getting published in the Guardian you become a lefty?
Richard Tol disagrees with the 97% figure, but what does he think the real figure is?
The consensus is of course in the high nineties.
So, not 97%, maybe it could be 95%, or 99%.
97% of anthropologists thought piltdown man was the missing link and he turned out to be a human skull attached to a monkey jaw bone. The real missing link ended up being found by a guy those assholes mocked.
Untrue in all particulars.
Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged by some researchers. [...] G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."
There is, of course, no "real missing link".
The catch 22 is in order to be a climate scientest you have to basically sign on to beleiving in AGW, so it is a bit like saying 97% of Catholic preists believe in god.
So Judith Curry is unemployed? John Christy is no longer at UAH? Richard Lindzen was forced to retire?
Has anyone taken into account the number of active underwater volcanoes?
Yes.
Next question?
So, we don't have a parallel where we can go run experiments, although I have had some interesting discussions with people about using Mars for this purpose.
-- Dr William Collins, before the American Physical Society climate change statement review subcommittee.
There are 99 comments as I write this. Most filled with desperate and condescending excuses why this is no in any way indicative that the Church of the Global Warming is in danger of having it orthodoxy overturned.
What part of Global warming do you not understand?
This shows that local warming can be caused by wind bringing heat from somewhere else.
I assume that you are bright enough to understand that such a mechanism cannot explain global warming. On this planet we obey the law of conservation of energy.
I left Gnome when they insisted on making the volume controls vertical instead of horizontal (like everyone else).
Which wouldn't have been such a big deal if that also didn't reverse the scroll wheel direction you had to use to change the volume.
If you're out to annoy your users, don't be surprised when you're out of users shortly...
Odd.
If I move the mouse over the little loudspeaker icon I scroll down to reduce the volume, scroll up to increase the volume.
If I click on the icon I see a horizontal slider for the volume.
Aha, but you're right - in gnome control center the scroll wheel works backwards.
Time for a bug report.
Ah, no need.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=703046
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=710231
When you install Jessie you get the Debian desktop with Gnome by default.
If you don't want a GUI you just deselect the desktop.
If you want KDE or Xfce you just select them instead of Gnome.
It's not hard.
Software to install:
[x] Desktop
"Linux noobs generally do NOT use Debian." ...and non noob Debian users generally do NOT use a GUI. So, what's the issue?
I don't think I'm a noob (programmer since 1977, Unix user since 1990) but I use a GUI on my Debian workstations. Not on the servers of course.
And, in my experience, neither Gnome nor KDE are particularly robust. I got tired of fighting graphics drivers and configurations, and have XFCE installed to run those things which simply won't work without.
What are these "configurations" of which you speak?
Exit row seating usually offers a bit more leg room with no reclining seats in front of you. It used to be free, now many airlines charge for it. Therer is no shortage of takers.
Unfortunately it's also often off-limits for minors - my 16 year old son is not allowed to book exit row seats, and he's a hell of a lot bigger than me.
The best thing about "The Sheep Look Up" is the happy ending.
I kinda like the idea of Linux/systemd being a full featured mini computer OS while Linux/SysV (or better Linux/OpenRC is more like a traditional lightweight Unix).
What a strange idea.
My phone runs systemd.
What the hell are you talking about? Estimates for natural emissions are around 150 billion tonnes per year. That's thirty times Human emissions.
True.
And that estimate is from the IPCC so it's likely the figures have been carefully massaged down to make Human emissions appear bigger than they are.
Oh dear, you were doing so well until you had to put your conspiracy theorists hat on.
No, you dummy, the estimate isn't "from the IPCC". The IPCC don't deal in estimates. They just report the published science. That's where the estimates of the the size of the carbon cycle come from.
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
You don't know that it has no long-term effects on the trend. ENSO hasn't been understood long enough. THEORETICALLY, it may be true, but it sure as hell isn't proven. Even now it is not well understood... which was part of my point.
The "theory" that says that ENSO has no long term effect is conservation of mass/energy.
I know you guys like to imagine that your vague hand-waving trumps basic science, but that's going a little far, don't you think?
ENSO has no long--term effect on climate. ENSO is a short term variation.
THE PURPOSE of models is to do forecasting. So far, no models can accurately project the behavior of ENSO.
The purpose of the climate models is to forecast climate, not short-term events that have no effect on the trend.
ENSO is irrelevant to climate, it's interesting for weather forecasting.
Thermohaline circulation.
Two parts - "thermo" and "haline".
Of course hotter water rises, if the salinity is unchanged.
But add salt and things get more interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
That is not a climate model. It has no physical basis. Models are not curve fitting.
No, what religions do is torture and murder heretics...
And prevent their papers from being published in scientific journals.
Oh, go on, just for laughs.
Please name one paper that was prevented from being published.
If ENSO cannot be predicted to any great degree (it cannot), yet it has a major effect on climate models, and now another effect is found that is claimed to have a far greater effect than ENSO, what then?
ENSO has no long--term effect on climate. ENSO is a short term variation.
(People who obsess about ENSO seem not to have heard of conservation of energy).
please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.
I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science.
From the commentary:
Recent papers have investigated this and found that when either observed ENSO conditions are forced on the model, or model runs are picked whose simulated ENSO matches observed ENSO there is better agreement with observed temperatures.
By the way, the models don't just overestimate warming since 1997ish, they also underestimate it before 1997.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise I was talking to an insane person.
Hope you get better.
Bye.
The swap file holds pages for which there is no room in RAM.
So you're putting the swap file in RAM.
Odd.
Do you know what a swap file is for?