My address is technically DCHP, but I've had the same address for years. I think the lease time is 24 hours, so as long as I renew once a day it never changes.
I like it that way myself so I can easily SSH in, but I would expect ISP logs to be able to tie any particular IP to any particular modem in a given time frame regardless. DCHP does not hide you in any way.
That said, first email I get I'll be signing up for a VPN service.
Omitting the ‘doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts’ is not a morally neutral act; it is a subtle deception that calls scientific practice into disrepute.
"last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only one hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that."
The best way to remove the tax grab aspect is to always plead not guilty to any traffic tickets. You are (at least around here) entitled to your day in court. Even if you know you are guilty, taking up court time and having someone come and testify against you makes your case almost always a money losing proposition for the government.
The more people who fight their tickets the more money the government loses. If everyone opted for their day in court, tickets would only be handed out for actual safety reasons, since enforcement would cost money rather than raising it.
If anyone could actually predict the climate with good resolution on any sort of meaningful timescale they could easily be billionaires themselves. That would be a huge intelligence coup for strategic investing.
Not surprising they can't, and don't, though.
It is unfortunate the ruling did not really address the concept of password protection whatsoever (ostensibly since it was not part of the facts in this case), though given that I'm assuming that part of the jurisprudence under appeal still holds.
That would be the same case, when it was in Ontario court;
[75] If the cellphone had been password protected or otherwise "locked" to users other than the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open the cellphone and examine its contents without first obtaining a search warrant.
The SCC in this ruling has now said you have no less right to privacy just because you don't password protect your phone, but totally sidestepped dealing with the real world implications of that. I expect this will be back before the court sooner rather than later.
This forecast has about a 5% chance of being vindicated retrospectively by future generations of scientists as being mostly on the mark.
That is another interesting thing about this whole debate. Science used to be a cooperative endeavor. Climate science is so polarized that there will be winners and losers in the historical record.
A couple generations from now, some group - either the Hansens and Manns or the Singers and Lindzens, are going to get the Lysenko Memorial award.
Good science isn't political at all; it merely describes reality. Climatology, as groups like the IPCC present it, isn't good science. It's a bunch of fudge-factor-laced models and ignored observations tightly wound around a political agenda. Basically, ignore what you can't explain, place assumptions anywhere the data is incomplete, draw conclusions that don't match up to reality, and pretend it all makes sense because you have "consensus".
This.
I like science as much as anyone but the IPCC's actual predictive track record leaves me fairly underwhelmed.
The problem is that we need better data collection, more data collection, and a lot more work put into understanding the underlying mechanics of the system as a whole before we start drawing wide-reaching conclusions about the drivers of the whole thing
Yup. I've noted in my work that engineers tend to be more skeptical as a group in general. This probably sums up why;
Basically the whole process is fixated on CO2 to basically the exclusion of all else. Suggesting anything else generally gets you ostracized. Oceans have only really entered the discussion recently and only because the models have been so bad. That's not the science I grew up with.
there is a direct correlation between the rise in fossil fuel use starting with the Industrial Revolution (~1850) and the incremental rise in global average temperatures.
No question it has been warming since at least 1850. Nothing unusual since then.
Even if we were able to improve climate models by leaps and bounds above the current ones (which themselves are pretty accurate), there would still be *some* uncertainty.
It's not that simple. No model will ever likely be entirely accurate, there will always be uncertainty. I'm not a climate scientist, but I know something about computing. In their large ensemble of models (I think there are around 30 of them in CMIP) you would expect some to overestimate, and some to underestimate, and observations (ie The Real World) would fall somewhere in the bell curve between if they represented an anywhere near realistic range of scenarios. That fact that they virtually ALL overestimate warming leads me to think there is something fundamentally wrong with the methodology across the entire group.
If they want us to trust them for anything important they should start by working on that. You don't have to be a climate scientists to think of where the problem might be.
New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.
A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming.
A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level
Slashdot Mirror
My address is technically DCHP, but I've had the same address for years. I think the lease time is 24 hours, so as long as I renew once a day it never changes.
I like it that way myself so I can easily SSH in, but I would expect ISP logs to be able to tie any particular IP to any particular modem in a given time frame regardless. DCHP does not hide you in any way.
That said, first email I get I'll be signing up for a VPN service.
Omitting the ‘doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts’ is not a morally neutral act; it is a subtle deception that calls scientific practice into disrepute.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12...
A quote from Judith Curry's blog sums it up well;
"last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only one hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two hundredths of a degree above 2005 — with an error range of one tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that."
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12...
Seems to run fine on my rooted Galaxy Note 3.
I've been using a beta version of Spidey - it does triangulation. https://github.com/jtwarren/sp...
The best way to remove the tax grab aspect is to always plead not guilty to any traffic tickets. You are (at least around here) entitled to your day in court. Even if you know you are guilty, taking up court time and having someone come and testify against you makes your case almost always a money losing proposition for the government.
The more people who fight their tickets the more money the government loses. If everyone opted for their day in court, tickets would only be handed out for actual safety reasons, since enforcement would cost money rather than raising it.
Everyone knows that is not possible. The climate never changed before the age of SUVs.
Anecdotally speaking, warming is generally good for beer sales.....
If anyone could actually predict the climate with good resolution on any sort of meaningful timescale they could easily be billionaires themselves. That would be a huge intelligence coup for strategic investing. Not surprising they can't, and don't, though.
That would be the same case, when it was in Ontario court;
[75] If the cellphone had been password protected or otherwise "locked" to users other than the appellant, it would not have been appropriate to take steps to open the cellphone and examine its contents without first obtaining a search warrant.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/on...
The SCC in this ruling has now said you have no less right to privacy just because you don't password protect your phone, but totally sidestepped dealing with the real world implications of that. I expect this will be back before the court sooner rather than later.
That was Moncton, New Brunswick, but point taken.
the guy definitely has some unresolved issues.
This forecast has about a 5% chance of being vindicated retrospectively by future generations of scientists as being mostly on the mark.
That is another interesting thing about this whole debate. Science used to be a cooperative endeavor. Climate science is so polarized that there will be winners and losers in the historical record.
A couple generations from now, some group - either the Hansens and Manns or the Singers and Lindzens, are going to get the Lysenko Memorial award.
It is a matter of debate between people who study such things, which is not most climate scientists.
http://www.climatedialogue.org...
Good science isn't political at all; it merely describes reality. Climatology, as groups like the IPCC present it, isn't good science. It's a bunch of fudge-factor-laced models and ignored observations tightly wound around a political agenda. Basically, ignore what you can't explain, place assumptions anywhere the data is incomplete, draw conclusions that don't match up to reality, and pretend it all makes sense because you have "consensus".
This.
I like science as much as anyone but the IPCC's actual predictive track record leaves me fairly underwhelmed.
The problem is that we need better data collection, more data collection, and a lot more work put into understanding the underlying mechanics of the system as a whole before we start drawing wide-reaching conclusions about the drivers of the whole thing
Yup. I've noted in my work that engineers tend to be more skeptical as a group in general. This probably sums up why;
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10... (long read but well worth it).
Basically the whole process is fixated on CO2 to basically the exclusion of all else. Suggesting anything else generally gets you ostracized. Oceans have only really entered the discussion recently and only because the models have been so bad. That's not the science I grew up with.
That is what adoption is for (though I know several gay people who have children from hetero relationships as well).
Sums it up well.
Government is a bigger threat to your rights and liberties than terrorists will ever be.
No worries.
It will be either warmer or colder tomorrow too.
The proper thing to do would be to count all categories and figure out how much energy conversion each represents individually and cumulatively.
there is a direct correlation between the rise in fossil fuel use starting with the Industrial Revolution (~1850) and the incremental rise in global average temperatures.
No question it has been warming since at least 1850. Nothing unusual since then.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
If you have a graph plotting CO2 emissions over that time period I would LOVE to see the correlation.
Good luck.
Even if we were able to improve climate models by leaps and bounds above the current ones (which themselves are pretty accurate), there would still be *some* uncertainty.
It's not that simple. No model will ever likely be entirely accurate, there will always be uncertainty. I'm not a climate scientist, but I know something about computing. In their large ensemble of models (I think there are around 30 of them in CMIP) you would expect some to overestimate, and some to underestimate, and observations (ie The Real World) would fall somewhere in the bell curve between if they represented an anywhere near realistic range of scenarios. That fact that they virtually ALL overestimate warming leads me to think there is something fundamentally wrong with the methodology across the entire group.
If they want us to trust them for anything important they should start by working on that. You don't have to be a climate scientists to think of where the problem might be.
New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10...
A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot....
A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot....
It sure was no record hot summer here in Manitoba, and last winter was the coldest since the late 1800s.
Given how bad their predictions are I don't lose any sleep.
I'll revisit when and if they actually have some track record of accuracy.
Don't let me interrupt your panic, though.