It would, and that's the point. It's not about cooling itself, it's about cooling inconsistent with AGW models. When the climate cools a bit but exactly as AGW models predict, then there's no contradiction.
Nevertheless, a simple test is to keep emitting lots of CO2 and measure the effects on a much longer timescale (say 40 years from now, compare a 15 year average temperature with one from the 20th century). If no warmer, there's a problem with the theory. So it's definitely falsifiable by any reasonable definition. Of course, if AGW is right, by then it'll be too late to do anything.
Actually, no. You didn't take into account additional factors. No matter how much CO2 we pump into atmosphere, a big enough drop in energy inputs will cause cooling anyway.
I'm not saying the IPCC is wrong, but there are other factors, mostly unknown, that affect the climate.
Is the climate changing? I don't doubt it.
But I can't support an alarmist position and extrapolation of data based on the limited knowledge we have of climate.
Scientists don't deny that there are other unknown factors affecting the climate. But they have already established that these unknown factors play only minor role. When you take all the factors that we know about and feed records of these factors into climate simulation, the resulting temperature graph will match real measurements almost perfectly. Any significant discrepancy between the model and real measurements would point at some unknown major factor. But right now, there isn't one.
Because government funded scientists are immune to political pressure?
Who'd bother with putting political pressure on actual scientists when you can much more easily take care of the issue by PR campaign in the mass media?
But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, so you've picked your side (democrat) and decided to brand anyone who dares question the base claim as a retarded, selfish, greedy, narrow-minded republican.
The people who realize that the entire fucking thing is all political bullshit are most likely NOT republicans OR democrats, because people with brains hate both parties. They hate both parties because they're filled with mindless morons like you. Morons who want everything to be black or white, right or wrong, and are willing to determine such based on what side they've already chosen, instead of actually deciding on the merits of the issue.
Basically: It's all bullshit, and you'll continue to cry "citation needed" despite plenty of valid citations having been given, and despite the severe lack of valid citations supporting your view. People like you are enabling and encouraging the morons in government. People like you are ruining western countries right and left.
So just because a bunch of greedy politicians turned good science into political bandwagon and gravy train, we should trash the good science along with the political crap? Are you nuts?
What observations would falsify your hypothesis that human emitted CO2 is causing warming of the earth that will have catastrophic consequences for humanity, assuming you exclude all proxy data?
Say, 15 years of no statistically significant warming, but continuously rising CO2 levels?
Nice try. Remember: not statistically significant = inconclusive. Now what observation would falsify AGW? Any observation which conclusively attributes the warming to any other factor than human emitted CO2.
The last time this guy wrote a "peer-reviewed" paper about satellite measurements contradicting global warming, he was wrong because his satellites were feeding him flawed data.
Training sabers are not mentioned in the films but they are referenced in video games like Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. Rosh Penin complains that he doesn't want to use training saber in the intro cinematic.
URL shortener is not a solution because it just adds one useless DNS lookup and HTTP redirect to the request. It doesn't redirect the final DNS lookup which will get filtered. But VPN/Tor are valid solutions.
Anyway, it won't be necessary because this is exactly what the European Court of Justice said earlier is beyond the power of courts alone.
Actually, profitability takes priority even in governments, including USG. The only problem is that it's the kind of profitability that benefits only government figures and their friends, not the people.
Small kids use training sabers, you know? Those things can't harm you any more than the training remote Luke was training with on board Millenium Falcon in Episode 4. The first real lightsaber a Jedi gets is usually the one he builds himself at the end of his basic training. And by then, he should be able to use it without cutting himself to pieces.
Because if they can't keep their tight grip on our culture, they're done for. This group of middlemen stopped being useful over a decade ago. It's not piracy they're fighting, it's the market which is trying to get rid of unnecessary transaction costs. Piracy is just a ruse.
You must have experience in tech support. That's a typical answer to a request, "why do you need that?"
Your lack of imagination doesn't equal someone else's lack of need.
The main problem of tech support is that what people try to do and what they really need tends to be two very different things. When you do tech support or software design, asking "why do you need that?" right in the beginning can save you a lot of pain later caused by lack of imagination and basic knowledge on the client's side.
At some point, things become "inevitable", and you can't fix the problem without making a new problem.
I agree. However, that is not the case in Palestine/Israel because the conflict still continues.
Oh, and Israel came into being by international convention, not of its own accord, and as a result of near extinction of the race.
Wrong. Israel declared independence *before* the 1947 UN resolution came into effect and both sides of the conflict violate provisions of the resolution.
Nor do people realize that the same international mandate that created Israel for the Jews to have a land for themselves, also created a state for the Palestinians as well. That state, Jordan, exists today, and is largely Palestinian population. Does the world really need TWO Palestinian states?
Wrong again. Jordan was founded in 1921 and recognized as independent country in 1946. The 1947 UN resolution was about partitioning Palestine proper. 43% of Palestine proper was allocated for new Arab state, half of which is now within borders of Israel.
And if *you* go back to history class, you might learn that most of the Jews left Judea by 200AD. There was no significant Jewish population in Palestine for 17 centuries. Majority of those 500 000 Jews who lived there in 1948 immigrated after 1920, mostly illegally. But if you insist on playing the "claim from 2000 years ago" card, how about we also return both Americas to Native Americans and most of France, Central Europe and all of British Islands to Celts?
China, Russia and many other countries, unlike Israel, were not founded by a bunch of armed immigrants who came to the area less than 30 years before declaring independence. And China, Russia and many other countries, unlike Israel, didn't drive most of the original population out by force. It's interesting how people defend Israel by pointing at attacks against it while conveniently forgetting that it was Israel that started the fight in 1948 without any legitimate claim to the region.
And that narrow peak of absorption is exactly where it matters: at the exact frequency of 280K black body radiation peak. In other words, it traps the specific kind of energy radiated by Earth's surface and turns it back into heat. In fact, a lot more than the same amount of water vapor does.
You don't see the contradiction in your own statement?
No, I don't, because there is none. You see a contradiction because you misunderstood a text written in language unfamiliar to you. Let me explain:
We're talking about the climate history of a planet, stretching over _eons_ of time. And somehow you believe 15 years or even 100 years is a "significant" enough period of time to not "find any temperature trend you want".
The term "statistical significance" means something completely different than you think. Look up my other posts in this discussion for thorough explanation. Statistical significance of some conclusion has nothing to do with importance of that conclusion. It means it's very unlikely that the conclusion is wrong, whether or not its implications are important.
I'll illustrate it even better on temperature trends. If you take temperature data from 2000 to 2010, you can find pretty much any trend you want (positive or negative) just by cutting a few months from the start or end of the period. That's because there's too much noise in the data to draw any conclusions. But if you take temperature data from 1910 to 2010, you'll get pretty much the same trend even if you cut up to 25 years from both ends. That's what "statistically significant" means. If you wanted to find a different trend, you'd have to look for it in data from another century. You can't get it just by slightly adjusting edges of your time interval.
If you look at the long term charts (even on pro-AGW websites like skepticalscience.com), 100 years is statistical noise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm. The ~10k year temperature spikes are occurring like clockwork and we haven't spiked outside of this pattern. So how is it valid to use short-term observations (~100 years) to make statistically significant claims about Earth's climate.
I don't care about what's going to happen 10k years in the future. I care about climate prediction for the next few centuries where I and my kids are going to live.
If you would actually read my comment, rather than frothing at the mouth like the zealot you apparently are, you would see that I specifically qualified that statement as saying "with enough measurements".
Sorry, my mistake that I read it too quickly.
Considering we are talking about claims that humanity is causing never before seen changes to the environment, it is safe to say that we probably need a time frame that is longer than the period that we have been doing the changing, don't you think?
No, I don't think that. We have accurate climate data about times long before our ancestors split from ancestors of chimps from various proxy sources but even if we didn't, it wouldn't change a thing. All we need to do to know whether or not mankind is responsible for global warming is to enumerate all important influences on climate and find out which ones are caused by man. When you can reliably quantify influence of mankind by other means, you don't need comparison to confirm it.
Slashdot Mirror
It would, and that's the point. It's not about cooling itself, it's about cooling inconsistent with AGW models. When the climate cools a bit but exactly as AGW models predict, then there's no contradiction.
Nevertheless, a simple test is to keep emitting lots of CO2 and measure the effects on a much longer timescale (say 40 years from now, compare a 15 year average temperature with one from the 20th century). If no warmer, there's a problem with the theory. So it's definitely falsifiable by any reasonable definition. Of course, if AGW is right, by then it'll be too late to do anything.
Actually, no. You didn't take into account additional factors. No matter how much CO2 we pump into atmosphere, a big enough drop in energy inputs will cause cooling anyway.
I'm not saying the IPCC is wrong, but there are other factors, mostly unknown, that affect the climate.
Is the climate changing? I don't doubt it.
But I can't support an alarmist position and extrapolation of data based on the limited knowledge we have of climate.
Scientists don't deny that there are other unknown factors affecting the climate. But they have already established that these unknown factors play only minor role. When you take all the factors that we know about and feed records of these factors into climate simulation, the resulting temperature graph will match real measurements almost perfectly. Any significant discrepancy between the model and real measurements would point at some unknown major factor. But right now, there isn't one.
Because government funded scientists are immune to political pressure?
Who'd bother with putting political pressure on actual scientists when you can much more easily take care of the issue by PR campaign in the mass media?
But global warming isn't a scientific issue - it's a political issue, so you've picked your side (democrat) and decided to brand anyone who dares question the base claim as a retarded, selfish, greedy, narrow-minded republican.
The people who realize that the entire fucking thing is all political bullshit are most likely NOT republicans OR democrats, because people with brains hate both parties. They hate both parties because they're filled with mindless morons like you. Morons who want everything to be black or white, right or wrong, and are willing to determine such based on what side they've already chosen, instead of actually deciding on the merits of the issue.
Basically: It's all bullshit, and you'll continue to cry "citation needed" despite plenty of valid citations having been given, and despite the severe lack of valid citations supporting your view. People like you are enabling and encouraging the morons in government. People like you are ruining western countries right and left.
So just because a bunch of greedy politicians turned good science into political bandwagon and gravy train, we should trash the good science along with the political crap? Are you nuts?
What observations would falsify your hypothesis that human emitted CO2 is causing warming of the earth that will have catastrophic consequences for humanity, assuming you exclude all proxy data?
Say, 15 years of no statistically significant warming, but continuously rising CO2 levels?
Nice try. Remember: not statistically significant = inconclusive. Now what observation would falsify AGW? Any observation which conclusively attributes the warming to any other factor than human emitted CO2.
The last time this guy wrote a "peer-reviewed" paper about satellite measurements contradicting global warming, he was wrong because his satellites were feeding him flawed data.
I'll wait for some peer review to decide whether this guy is on to something or whether his findings are nothing but hot air (pun intended).
Training sabers are not mentioned in the films but they are referenced in video games like Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. Rosh Penin complains that he doesn't want to use training saber in the intro cinematic.
URL shortener is not a solution because it just adds one useless DNS lookup and HTTP redirect to the request. It doesn't redirect the final DNS lookup which will get filtered. But VPN/Tor are valid solutions. Anyway, it won't be necessary because this is exactly what the European Court of Justice said earlier is beyond the power of courts alone.
Actually, profitability takes priority even in governments, including USG. The only problem is that it's the kind of profitability that benefits only government figures and their friends, not the people.
Small kids use training sabers, you know? Those things can't harm you any more than the training remote Luke was training with on board Millenium Falcon in Episode 4. The first real lightsaber a Jedi gets is usually the one he builds himself at the end of his basic training. And by then, he should be able to use it without cutting himself to pieces.
The web takes ages to load. Let me guess: It got SlashDDoSed...
Let's build him a statue. Say, a small wheeled elephant being stomped by a giant cockroach.
Because if they can't keep their tight grip on our culture, they're done for. This group of middlemen stopped being useful over a decade ago. It's not piracy they're fighting, it's the market which is trying to get rid of unnecessary transaction costs. Piracy is just a ruse.
You must have experience in tech support. That's a typical answer to a request, "why do you need that?"
Your lack of imagination doesn't equal someone else's lack of need.
The main problem of tech support is that what people try to do and what they really need tends to be two very different things. When you do tech support or software design, asking "why do you need that?" right in the beginning can save you a lot of pain later caused by lack of imagination and basic knowledge on the client's side.
After 17 centuries? Yes.
At some point, things become "inevitable", and you can't fix the problem without making a new problem.
I agree. However, that is not the case in Palestine/Israel because the conflict still continues.
Oh, and Israel came into being by international convention, not of its own accord, and as a result of near extinction of the race.
Wrong. Israel declared independence *before* the 1947 UN resolution came into effect and both sides of the conflict violate provisions of the resolution.
Nor do people realize that the same international mandate that created Israel for the Jews to have a land for themselves, also created a state for the Palestinians as well. That state, Jordan, exists today, and is largely Palestinian population. Does the world really need TWO Palestinian states?
Wrong again. Jordan was founded in 1921 and recognized as independent country in 1946. The 1947 UN resolution was about partitioning Palestine proper. 43% of Palestine proper was allocated for new Arab state, half of which is now within borders of Israel.
Citation needed. And even if it were true, it changes nothing about the legitimate claim of those Palestinians who lived there for centuries.
And if *you* go back to history class, you might learn that most of the Jews left Judea by 200AD. There was no significant Jewish population in Palestine for 17 centuries. Majority of those 500 000 Jews who lived there in 1948 immigrated after 1920, mostly illegally. But if you insist on playing the "claim from 2000 years ago" card, how about we also return both Americas to Native Americans and most of France, Central Europe and all of British Islands to Celts?
China, Russia and many other countries, unlike Israel, were not founded by a bunch of armed immigrants who came to the area less than 30 years before declaring independence. And China, Russia and many other countries, unlike Israel, didn't drive most of the original population out by force. It's interesting how people defend Israel by pointing at attacks against it while conveniently forgetting that it was Israel that started the fight in 1948 without any legitimate claim to the region.
Now note the spectrum of CO2: http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html So tiny. So little absorption. So little concentration.
And that narrow peak of absorption is exactly where it matters: at the exact frequency of 280K black body radiation peak. In other words, it traps the specific kind of energy radiated by Earth's surface and turns it back into heat. In fact, a lot more than the same amount of water vapor does.
Now imagine the hangover when we run out of cheap oil before we can replace combustion engine with some viable alternative.
You don't see the contradiction in your own statement?
No, I don't, because there is none. You see a contradiction because you misunderstood a text written in language unfamiliar to you. Let me explain:
We're talking about the climate history of a planet, stretching over _eons_ of time. And somehow you believe 15 years or even 100 years is a "significant" enough period of time to not "find any temperature trend you want".
The term "statistical significance" means something completely different than you think. Look up my other posts in this discussion for thorough explanation. Statistical significance of some conclusion has nothing to do with importance of that conclusion. It means it's very unlikely that the conclusion is wrong, whether or not its implications are important.
I'll illustrate it even better on temperature trends. If you take temperature data from 2000 to 2010, you can find pretty much any trend you want (positive or negative) just by cutting a few months from the start or end of the period. That's because there's too much noise in the data to draw any conclusions. But if you take temperature data from 1910 to 2010, you'll get pretty much the same trend even if you cut up to 25 years from both ends. That's what "statistically significant" means. If you wanted to find a different trend, you'd have to look for it in data from another century. You can't get it just by slightly adjusting edges of your time interval.
If you look at the long term charts (even on pro-AGW websites like skepticalscience.com), 100 years is statistical noise: http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm. The ~10k year temperature spikes are occurring like clockwork and we haven't spiked outside of this pattern. So how is it valid to use short-term observations (~100 years) to make statistically significant claims about Earth's climate.
I don't care about what's going to happen 10k years in the future. I care about climate prediction for the next few centuries where I and my kids are going to live.
If you would actually read my comment, rather than frothing at the mouth like the zealot you apparently are, you would see that I specifically qualified that statement as saying "with enough measurements".
Sorry, my mistake that I read it too quickly.
Considering we are talking about claims that humanity is causing never before seen changes to the environment, it is safe to say that we probably need a time frame that is longer than the period that we have been doing the changing, don't you think?
No, I don't think that. We have accurate climate data about times long before our ancestors split from ancestors of chimps from various proxy sources but even if we didn't, it wouldn't change a thing. All we need to do to know whether or not mankind is responsible for global warming is to enumerate all important influences on climate and find out which ones are caused by man. When you can reliably quantify influence of mankind by other means, you don't need comparison to confirm it.