Right, but they make it abundantly clear that any such model is not ("yet", optimistically speaking) statistically distinguishable from trends attributable to natural causes. Do you see where they say that? If you saw that disclaimer and are just trolling, I may regret spending time on this exchange... *frown*
You can copy and paste whatever you like. Just be aware of what's being said in section F with words and phrases like "premature to conclude", "not yet detectable", "the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time".
This is called "doing science", and they are doing it right. If they pushed any kind of data fit without error bars (*ahem* hockey stick graph *ahem*), then a more proper term would be "cargo cult science".
However you should also read and try to comprehend http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes what you have linked here.
It seems to contradict your point. (And: it only covers EXPLICITLY atlantic hurricanes, that means it leaves out european orcanes and asian tai funs... pretty narrow view imho).
Anyway: the paper clearly states that hurricane activity has increased. You claim it has not. Try another link please...
Well, there's a couple things here. First, "hurricane activity" is ambiguous and it's helpful to look at two metrics: frequency and intensity. If you read carefully, you will see that the noaa.gov summary claims a hunch that with the progression of AGW, hurricane frequency will diminish, but intensity will go up for large individual storms in certain hurricane basins. However, their final conclusion is while they have these hunches, they do not (yet) have the higher levels of confidence claimed by AGW doomsayers in other climate change fields. In other words, it's premature to conclude that there's any detectable link between AGW and hurricane activity changes. Read the section "F. Synthesis and Summary", and I think you'll see that I haven't misrepresented them.
On average per year hurricane frequency has increased, so what is your point?
According to this link current research doesn't really give any confidence regarding a link between AGW and hurricane frequency and intensity. However, their hunch is that hurricane frequency will decrease with rising temperatures (counter intuitive, huh?).
A random year 40 years ago that had "more" than we had on average the last 10 years? What exactly do you want to point out with that?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not a hurricane researcher and am not presenting my own analysis here.
That you are an idiot
Lovely.
and don't understand that a hurricane and a tai fun is the same thing in different parts of the world?
Uh... thank you for bringing up random facts, I guess?
Sorry, I don't have the time to follow links of random hobby blog posters who have no clue... (and blog posts are no proof anyway... link a scientific study and I read it)
One of the most important skills a person can have is not taking him/herself too seriously. Please allow me to assist you in this area. Now, you are demanding that I post a link to a scientific paper myself, directly. You don't want to go to that blog post and follow its links, because it's just a blog on the internet, right?
Prepare to have your mind blown..... ready?...... Slashdot is just a blog on the internet, and you apparently DO "have the time to follow random hobby blog posters who have no clue", because that's what you're asking me to facilitate for you (you made it plain that you think I "have no clue", so it fits perfectly).
I already referred to one, the idea that global warming would increase hurricane frequency. You can spend as much time as you want following the links on this page to read about more embarrassingly inaccurate predictions:
So how weather extremes will be and how good the predictions are we will see THEN!
I completely agree with this statement. We shall certainly see what happens. Unfortunately, that's the only reliable way to know future weather and climate patterns. Maybe someday climate change science will become in the net useful, instead of a ridiculous, politicized distraction and drain on our international economies.
whether Katrina or the polar vortex were just statistical blips or part of the AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather
What AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather? You mean the prediction that warming of the oceans would lead to more hurricanes? The claim that was later largely dismissed because it doesn't fit the evidence? In fact, if there is a general pattern of AGW predictions, it's that they turn out to be wrong. This should surprise exactly nobody, because you can't extrapolate an empirically derived model of a complex, chaotic system.
I find this ironic since the political AWG alarmism lobby deserves a lot of the blame for this. Remember the use of Hurricane Katrina splashed on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie cover. And pretty much whenever there's a natural disaster you have AGW alarmists (not just trolling internet comments, but also occupying high places in government) stirring the pot some more.
Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked.
I don't doubt that this is true. I also don't doubt that the enthusiasm of researchers to jump on bandwagons follows the "weather patterns" of public funding availability. That's how Richard Lindzen of MIT describes it, and it seems to fit.
When I was a kid I ate large amounts of rhubarb, rhubarb pie, cobbler, etc. Definitely created high performance flow issues, involving interfacing with utilities by, uh, sitting on the can.
Consumed in moderation, they can be part of a balanced and brain enriching diet. Personally, I am sort of a vegan when it comes to this specific item at the cafeteria, so I make it up with M&Ms and Mountain Dew.
I have zero interest in debating the libraries individual choices. They may be right or wrong, I'm just saying that disallowing some kids from reading some books is a normal part of parenting or surrogate parenting.
Schools in general act "in loco parentis", and decide what material young people should be exposed to in order to have a good education. Schools may make good or bad choices, but they do make choices. I am not surprised that a book is banned at a school library. It is no more or less appropriate than a ban on taking kids to a field trip to a strip club. I as a parent would happily ban my children from attendance at a strip club, and a school (acting, again, in loco parentis) may do the same if it decides it's best.
Don't like that? Then homeschool your kids and be responsible for their welfare yourself.
For what it's worth, I homeschool my own kids. I won't show slasher movies to a 3 year old. I expect an 18 year old to be prepared to be an adult. At some point in there a transformation has taken place; every child is different, but parents can and do mess it up by exposing their kids to junk when they're not ready for it. Such junk could be bad friends (learning to be racists/dishonest/etc.) or (yes, Slashdot) bad media for their age and emotional maturity.
No, I can not test if my brain is merely living in a vat. Which is why I do not believe that my brain is living in a vat.
Not so fast, buddy, you avoided the question. Do you believe (and more to the point, do lots of intelligent people believe) that their brains are not living in a vat, that the world is real?
Of course lots of smart people believe that. Can they test it? No. But it's OK to believe some things you can't test.
No, it's not. In fact, once you have it explained to you properly, and when you begin to appreciate the amount of time involved (a scale of hundreds of millions of years) - and how long it took, say, to get from single-cell to multicell organisms alone - it does, in fact, become quite obvious that evolution would be happening.
If you don't see any craziness here, you're not reading the right books. As I alluded, there is intense debate and mystery surrounding the details and mechanisms of macroevolution, just as with biogenesis. Gould wrote about fossil records where you have evolutionary stasis for hundreds of millions of years (evolution just hovering close to a species' mean, if you will), and then in the course of 100K years or so, a new species dramatically emerges. How? What happened?
Now, mind you, evolutionary biologists and paleontologists are unified in belief in the _fact_ of macroevolution. But it is weird stuff and while there are lots of ideas being researched and developed, it's my understanding that nobody can really say that they understand the mechanisms.
You yell too much. Also, I am having difficulty relating how your response addresses my specific observations. Note that by "crazy" I didn't mean "insane and wrong". It was more like "whoa, this is bizarre stuff that the best minds in the world don't fully understand". And I was just saying, don't be so quick to call people idiots as long as there are these huge, mostly unmapped frontiers of our knowledge.
It's easy to call people idiots, but I think people lose sight of what we still don't know yet. Things like the fossil record, the distance to the (visible!) stars, and geology indicate that the earth appears to be really old. But how did the first DNA come into being? Do we have anything more than a wild assumption about that? I think one clue is that the smartest people among us can't agree whether earth got its life from our own primordial soup or from a panspermic plop.
For those with open minds, macroevolution is just as crazy to think about as the origin of life. Not saying it's wrong, just that it's crazy to think about. Well, isn't it?
How cute and trendy of you. They're called MacBooks, dude. All of Apple's laptops are MacBooks.
Whew, thank you for correcting him. He should never, ever poke fun at Apple products or Apple users. It's funny when people parody other brands, but never the brand of the all-important "i".
Re:But Node.JS IS WEBSCALE
on
Is Ruby Dying?
·
· Score: 1
with 2 georgous ladies
Does that mean two "ladies" both named "george" who are presumed to be into cross dressing? No, thanks.
Thank you, raymorris. I googled this myself (after I posted it, of course), and I think you are right. But I like to think that by hijacking the "amirite" complaint into a general grammar Nazi fest, I have been upholding the highest principles and traditions of Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
It was about the trend.
Right, but they make it abundantly clear that any such model is not ("yet", optimistically speaking) statistically distinguishable from trends attributable to natural causes. Do you see where they say that? If you saw that disclaimer and are just trolling, I may regret spending time on this exchange... *frown*
You can copy and paste whatever you like. Just be aware of what's being said in section F with words and phrases like "premature to conclude", "not yet detectable", "the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time".
This is called "doing science", and they are doing it right. If they pushed any kind of data fit without error bars (*ahem* hockey stick graph *ahem*), then a more proper term would be "cargo cult science".
Oh, a master of words.
Verily.
However you should also read and try to comprehend http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes what you have linked here. It seems to contradict your point. (And: it only covers EXPLICITLY atlantic hurricanes, that means it leaves out european orcanes and asian tai funs ... pretty narrow view imho).
Anyway: the paper clearly states that hurricane activity has increased. You claim it has not. Try another link please ...
Well, there's a couple things here. First, "hurricane activity" is ambiguous and it's helpful to look at two metrics: frequency and intensity. If you read carefully, you will see that the noaa.gov summary claims a hunch that with the progression of AGW, hurricane frequency will diminish, but intensity will go up for large individual storms in certain hurricane basins. However, their final conclusion is while they have these hunches, they do not (yet) have the higher levels of confidence claimed by AGW doomsayers in other climate change fields. In other words, it's premature to conclude that there's any detectable link between AGW and hurricane activity changes. Read the section "F. Synthesis and Summary", and I think you'll see that I haven't misrepresented them.
On average per year hurricane frequency has increased, so what is your point?
According to this link current research doesn't really give any confidence regarding a link between AGW and hurricane frequency and intensity. However, their hunch is that hurricane frequency will decrease with rising temperatures (counter intuitive, huh?).
A random year 40 years ago that had "more" than we had on average the last 10 years? What exactly do you want to point out with that?
I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not a hurricane researcher and am not presenting my own analysis here.
That you are an idiot
Lovely.
and don't understand that a hurricane and a tai fun is the same thing in different parts of the world?
Uh... thank you for bringing up random facts, I guess?
Sorry, I don't have the time to follow links of random hobby blog posters who have no clue ... (and blog posts are no proof anyway ... link a scientific study and I read it)
One of the most important skills a person can have is not taking him/herself too seriously. Please allow me to assist you in this area. Now, you are demanding that I post a link to a scientific paper myself, directly. You don't want to go to that blog post and follow its links, because it's just a blog on the internet, right?
Prepare to have your mind blown..... ready?...... Slashdot is just a blog on the internet, and you apparently DO "have the time to follow random hobby blog posters who have no clue", because that's what you're asking me to facilitate for you (you made it plain that you think I "have no clue", so it fits perfectly).
Do you feel silly yet?
http://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/about/science/global-warming/global-warming-failed-predictions/
So how weather extremes will be and how good the predictions are we will see THEN!
I completely agree with this statement. We shall certainly see what happens. Unfortunately, that's the only reliable way to know future weather and climate patterns. Maybe someday climate change science will become in the net useful, instead of a ridiculous, politicized distraction and drain on our international economies.
whether Katrina or the polar vortex were just statistical blips or part of the AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather
What AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather? You mean the prediction that warming of the oceans would lead to more hurricanes? The claim that was later largely dismissed because it doesn't fit the evidence? In fact, if there is a general pattern of AGW predictions, it's that they turn out to be wrong. This should surprise exactly nobody, because you can't extrapolate an empirically derived model of a complex, chaotic system.
I find this ironic since the political AWG alarmism lobby deserves a lot of the blame for this. Remember the use of Hurricane Katrina splashed on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie cover. And pretty much whenever there's a natural disaster you have AGW alarmists (not just trolling internet comments, but also occupying high places in government) stirring the pot some more.
Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked.
I don't doubt that this is true. I also don't doubt that the enthusiasm of researchers to jump on bandwagons follows the "weather patterns" of public funding availability. That's how Richard Lindzen of MIT describes it, and it seems to fit.
FTA: "when the wind is calm and the sun isn't shining."
Definitely where the sun wasn't shining. Can't say that the wind was calm, though. OK, I think everybody's got the picture. I'll stop now.
When I was a kid I ate large amounts of rhubarb, rhubarb pie, cobbler, etc. Definitely created high performance flow issues, involving interfacing with utilities by, uh, sitting on the can.
Is that what I'm reading here between the lines? If so, no thanks.
I think we should nuke right in the middle of Yellowstone so we can see what lies beneath the surface.
Consumed in moderation, they can be part of a balanced and brain enriching diet. Personally, I am sort of a vegan when it comes to this specific item at the cafeteria, so I make it up with M&Ms and Mountain Dew.
I have zero interest in debating the libraries individual choices. They may be right or wrong, I'm just saying that disallowing some kids from reading some books is a normal part of parenting or surrogate parenting.
Schools in general act "in loco parentis", and decide what material young people should be exposed to in order to have a good education. Schools may make good or bad choices, but they do make choices. I am not surprised that a book is banned at a school library. It is no more or less appropriate than a ban on taking kids to a field trip to a strip club. I as a parent would happily ban my children from attendance at a strip club, and a school (acting, again, in loco parentis) may do the same if it decides it's best.
Don't like that? Then homeschool your kids and be responsible for their welfare yourself.
For what it's worth, I homeschool my own kids. I won't show slasher movies to a 3 year old. I expect an 18 year old to be prepared to be an adult. At some point in there a transformation has taken place; every child is different, but parents can and do mess it up by exposing their kids to junk when they're not ready for it. Such junk could be bad friends (learning to be racists/dishonest/etc.) or (yes, Slashdot) bad media for their age and emotional maturity.
No, I can not test if my brain is merely living in a vat. Which is why I do not believe that my brain is living in a vat.
Not so fast, buddy, you avoided the question. Do you believe (and more to the point, do lots of intelligent people believe) that their brains are not living in a vat, that the world is real?
Of course lots of smart people believe that. Can they test it? No. But it's OK to believe some things you can't test.
It's anti-Linux [...] -Stallman fan
Fraudster! You didn't put GNU/Linux.
OK, can you test whether the world is real, or your brain is merely living in a vat?
No, it's not. In fact, once you have it explained to you properly, and when you begin to appreciate the amount of time involved (a scale of hundreds of millions of years) - and how long it took, say, to get from single-cell to multicell organisms alone - it does, in fact, become quite obvious that evolution would be happening.
If you don't see any craziness here, you're not reading the right books. As I alluded, there is intense debate and mystery surrounding the details and mechanisms of macroevolution, just as with biogenesis. Gould wrote about fossil records where you have evolutionary stasis for hundreds of millions of years (evolution just hovering close to a species' mean, if you will), and then in the course of 100K years or so, a new species dramatically emerges. How? What happened?
Now, mind you, evolutionary biologists and paleontologists are unified in belief in the _fact_ of macroevolution. But it is weird stuff and while there are lots of ideas being researched and developed, it's my understanding that nobody can really say that they understand the mechanisms.
You yell too much. Also, I am having difficulty relating how your response addresses my specific observations. Note that by "crazy" I didn't mean "insane and wrong". It was more like "whoa, this is bizarre stuff that the best minds in the world don't fully understand". And I was just saying, don't be so quick to call people idiots as long as there are these huge, mostly unmapped frontiers of our knowledge.
It's easy to call people idiots, but I think people lose sight of what we still don't know yet. Things like the fossil record, the distance to the (visible!) stars, and geology indicate that the earth appears to be really old. But how did the first DNA come into being? Do we have anything more than a wild assumption about that? I think one clue is that the smartest people among us can't agree whether earth got its life from our own primordial soup or from a panspermic plop.
For those with open minds, macroevolution is just as crazy to think about as the origin of life. Not saying it's wrong, just that it's crazy to think about. Well, isn't it?
I think you're defining things in such a way that everybody's brains can be considered defective.
How cute and trendy of you. They're called MacBooks, dude. All of Apple's laptops are MacBooks.
Whew, thank you for correcting him. He should never, ever poke fun at Apple products or Apple users. It's funny when people parody other brands, but never the brand of the all-important "i".
with 2 georgous ladies
Does that mean two "ladies" both named "george" who are presumed to be into cross dressing? No, thanks.
Thank you, raymorris. I googled this myself (after I posted it, of course), and I think you are right. But I like to think that by hijacking the "amirite" complaint into a general grammar Nazi fest, I have been upholding the highest principles and traditions of Slashdot.