Interesting. Thanks. I found the following about GMO foods that suggests there is "no statistically significant differences on the safety of eating GM foods between Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party as compared with Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party." - http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
So perhaps my perception on at least that technology is skewed.
"Liberal" has evolved different meanings in different places. I see you are from Germany so you may not be aware that "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt" - http://www.britannica.com/topi... . "Liberal", "left", and "Democrat" are all but synonymous. I would be interested to know whether your experience in Germany is that the irrational rejection of technology is predominantly associated with the left.
My experience is that democrats are much more prone to irrational fear of technology than republicans. I would suspect that most of those who oppose GMOs, Fluoridation of water, nuclear power, and vaccination, are liberals. I was unable to find any research to back up this hunch though...
Apparently the artificial banana flavouring found in candies is much closer to the Gros Michel. I've only ever had the Cavendish. I wonder if any banana connoisseurs here would agree?
a taste test has shown that the Gros Michel does closely resemble the artificial banana flavor: "It's almost like what a Cavendish would taste like but sort of amplified, sweeter and, yeah, somehow artificial. Like how grape flavoured bubble-gum differs from an actual grape," he explains. "When I first tasted it, it made me think of banana flavourings." - http://io9.com/debunking-the-m...
Whether or not you were trying to illustrate the kind of specious arguments typically advanced by the credulous, you certainly succeeded. I'm glad to hear that you do not believethatkind of nonsense is really deep (though if you click those links it becomes less clear that this is the case). There are a host of science deniers who do fall for that kind of BS.
Relative to the rate of warming prior to the last 18 years 9 months. RSS shows warming of -0.024+/-0.179 C/decade since the super el-nino of 1998. The rate prior to 1998 was 0.082+/-0.156 C/decade. The uncertainty is greater than the trend in both cases (since the RSS data is so noisy) and there is overlap between the two. Possibly warming has stopped since 1998, but it is also possible that the underlying trend has increased since 1998.
The trend over the whole 35 year record is 0.122+/-0.063 C/decade. That is probably a more reliable metric - to the extent that the RSS data can be considered reliable. It is the minority report. All other data sets show considerably more warming.
The problem is that some people think total nonsense is really deep. They are easily duped when they hear Brits with hereditary titles interspersing Latin with statistics. I wonder if they would be able to square the fact that the data does not support the notion that warming has slowed over the last 18 years, 9 months? - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
The Germans apparently ate sawdust during WW1: The foul black bread that was served was known as kriegsbrot, which translates to war bread. The recipe is quoted from the records of the German food providing ministry published in Berlin in 1941 was "50% bruised rye grain, 20% sliced sugar beets, 20% tree flour (sawdust), 10% minced leaves and straw" - https://books.google.ca/books?...
Nope. The only study that showed net benefits up to 1C warming had errors. Here's how it looks corrected: https://andthentheresphysics.w... . Say, why not answer the question? what is the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone?
You may want to look up Pollyanna. You seem to be confused as to the meaning. While you're at it, you may want to look up the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone. If you're going to have a strong opinion on this topic it may as well be an informed one.
During the Pliocene three million years ago, the climate was 2 to 3C warmer and the seas were 25–35 meters higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1994; Rahmstorf, 2007). I'm sure the critters of the time loved it, but our coastal cities would not. The last 10,000 years is of interest because that represents the birth of our civilization. It is the climate that we have adapted our infrastructure to.
No. The Marcott reconstruction has proxies that extend to 1940. The surface station data are shown along side the reconstruction (and so is the Mann reconstuction), but this is for reference. They are not used in the reconstruction. The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
So if the IPCC says warming is slower (over the last decade), how do you extrapolate a greater increase of temperatures over the coming years
What we have is annual and decadal variability superimposed on a secular anthropogenic warming trend. If you look at a very short interval, you will see primarily the variability. If you look at a longer interval, you will get a clearer picture of the secular anthropogenic trend. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good illustration here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There was a slow cooling for about 6000 years, followed by an abrupt change in trajectory over the last century. The warming over the last century has been attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
Here's a comparison of the HADCRU data mentioned in the article to the satellite data (UAH) and to another surface station data set (GISS). They all show warming of about the same magnitude over the last few decades: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
There is a target to keep warming below 2C as there is an expectation of large negative impacts at that level of warming. We're now 1C away from 2C. The next 1C will come much faster than the first at the current trajectory.
It looks like we've seen a slow cooling of temperatures over the last 6000 years - since the peak of the current interglacial. There was an abrupt reversal over the last century: http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-c...
For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun
massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the
NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present),
there were no gun massacres.
The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm
suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate
per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully
implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In
the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was.43 (range.27 to.60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was.25
(range.16 to.33).
Since Dr. Hansen's December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR)... A NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR "the most liberal" media outlet in the country, and that his job was "to make the president look good" - http://www.wunderground.com/bl...
If they were interested in NOAA data then they could have just surfed over to the NOAA website: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-... . What they are looking to get access to are personal emails. For what purpose? All of the data and processes are freely available. If you have an objection to the science then take it up in the literature. No need for a witch hunt.
Slashdot Mirror
The GP isn't even really correct. Sea level rise was rapid 10,000 years ago during deglaciation, but has been fairly flat for the last 8,000 years or so.... until recently where we've seen accelerated sea level rise.
Interesting. Thanks. I found the following about GMO foods that suggests there is "no statistically significant differences on the safety of eating GM foods between Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party as compared with Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party." - http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
So perhaps my perception on at least that technology is skewed.
"Liberal" has evolved different meanings in different places. I see you are from Germany so you may not be aware that "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt" - http://www.britannica.com/topi... . "Liberal", "left", and "Democrat" are all but synonymous. I would be interested to know whether your experience in Germany is that the irrational rejection of technology is predominantly associated with the left.
My experience is that democrats are much more prone to irrational fear of technology than republicans. I would suspect that most of those who oppose GMOs, Fluoridation of water, nuclear power, and vaccination, are liberals. I was unable to find any research to back up this hunch though...
Apparently the artificial banana flavouring found in candies is much closer to the Gros Michel. I've only ever had the Cavendish. I wonder if any banana connoisseurs here would agree?
a taste test has shown that the Gros Michel does closely resemble the artificial banana flavor: "It's almost like what a Cavendish would taste like but sort of amplified, sweeter and, yeah, somehow artificial. Like how grape flavoured bubble-gum differs from an actual grape," he explains. "When I first tasted it, it made me think of banana flavourings." - http://io9.com/debunking-the-m...
Whether or not you were trying to illustrate the kind of specious arguments typically advanced by the credulous, you certainly succeeded. I'm glad to hear that you do not believe that kind of nonsense is really deep (though if you click those links it becomes less clear that this is the case). There are a host of science deniers who do fall for that kind of BS.
Yup. It doesn't mean what you think it means... or were you just knowingly spouting meaningless information?
Relative to the rate of warming prior to the last 18 years 9 months. RSS shows warming of -0.024+/-0.179 C/decade since the super el-nino of 1998. The rate prior to 1998 was 0.082+/-0.156 C/decade. The uncertainty is greater than the trend in both cases (since the RSS data is so noisy) and there is overlap between the two. Possibly warming has stopped since 1998, but it is also possible that the underlying trend has increased since 1998.
The trend over the whole 35 year record is 0.122+/-0.063 C/decade. That is probably a more reliable metric - to the extent that the RSS data can be considered reliable. It is the minority report. All other data sets show considerably more warming.
The problem is that some people think total nonsense is really deep. They are easily duped when they hear Brits with hereditary titles interspersing Latin with statistics. I wonder if they would be able to square the fact that the data does not support the notion that warming has slowed over the last 18 years, 9 months? - https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
That is strange. Raspberry plants grow like weeds. It seems like it would be easier to pick some berries than hand make wooden pips.
The Germans apparently ate sawdust during WW1: The foul black bread that was served was known as kriegsbrot, which translates to war bread. The recipe is quoted from the records of the German food providing ministry published in Berlin in 1941 was "50% bruised rye grain, 20% sliced sugar beets, 20% tree flour (sawdust), 10% minced leaves and straw" - https://books.google.ca/books?...
Nope. The only study that showed net benefits up to 1C warming had errors. Here's how it looks corrected: https://andthentheresphysics.w... . Say, why not answer the question? what is the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone?
You may want to look up Pollyanna. You seem to be confused as to the meaning. While you're at it, you may want to look up the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone. If you're going to have a strong opinion on this topic it may as well be an informed one.
Thanks Pollyanna. Of course the people who actually have to plan for this do not share your optimism: http://www.rollingstone.com/po...
During the Pliocene three million years ago, the climate was 2 to 3C warmer and the seas were 25–35 meters higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1994; Rahmstorf, 2007). I'm sure the critters of the time loved it, but our coastal cities would not. The last 10,000 years is of interest because that represents the birth of our civilization. It is the climate that we have adapted our infrastructure to.
No. The Marcott reconstruction has proxies that extend to 1940. The surface station data are shown along side the reconstruction (and so is the Mann reconstuction), but this is for reference. They are not used in the reconstruction. The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
There is no reasoning with ideologists
Said with no sense of irony or self awareness XD
So if the IPCC says warming is slower (over the last decade), how do you extrapolate a greater increase of temperatures over the coming years
What we have is annual and decadal variability superimposed on a secular anthropogenic warming trend. If you look at a very short interval, you will see primarily the variability. If you look at a longer interval, you will get a clearer picture of the secular anthropogenic trend. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good illustration here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There was a slow cooling for about 6000 years, followed by an abrupt change in trajectory over the last century. The warming over the last century has been attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
Here's a comparison of the HADCRU data mentioned in the article to the satellite data (UAH) and to another surface station data set (GISS). They all show warming of about the same magnitude over the last few decades: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
There is a target to keep warming below 2C as there is an expectation of large negative impacts at that level of warming. We're now 1C away from 2C. The next 1C will come much faster than the first at the current trajectory.
It looks like we've seen a slow cooling of temperatures over the last 6000 years - since the peak of the current interglacial. There was an abrupt reversal over the last century: http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-c...
For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.
The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25
(range .16 to .33).
https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/w...
Since Dr. Hansen's December 6 talk, NASA has rejected several media requests to interview him, including one by National Public Radio (NPR)... A NASA public affairs official appointed by the White House, George Deutsch, rejected the NPR interview request. He called NPR "the most liberal" media outlet in the country, and that his job was "to make the president look good" - http://www.wunderground.com/bl...
If they were interested in NOAA data then they could have just surfed over to the NOAA website: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-... . What they are looking to get access to are personal emails. For what purpose? All of the data and processes are freely available. If you have an objection to the science then take it up in the literature. No need for a witch hunt.