And if you think science has nothing to do with politics, you really haven't been paying attention. Scientists are no more or less idealists than anyone else, no more or less corruptible, and in the absence of data that people admit falsifies their hypotheses, can spin their wheels for a generation agreeing with one another and accomplishing nothing (see: string theory).
Yeah, mate. The scientists did all that undergrad and postdoc study so that they could all become idealists instead of doing research.
Thank God we have you to show us where they all went wrong. Politics!
You do realize as the only person smarter than all the scientists, you have an obligation to fix up the politics errors in the climate science papers, and submit the truth for publication.
Yes, we get it: people who doubt global warming are not of your tribe
People who doubt science be it evolution or climate science or that vaccines are effective, or that we landed on the moon are fine is small quantities, but that kind of bullshit in "news for nerds" being moderated up is a bit near the bone.
Yes, we get it: you enjoy trolling the people who like science, but Angel does have a valid point. Stop writing so much bullshit. It's getting offensive.
I mean shit, look at Al Gore, if there was a list of everybody on the planet sorted by personal carbon consumption, he'd probably be in the top 1%.
Gore is carbon neutral isn't he?
I don't care how energy efficient his 20 bedroom house or his private jet are;
Gore doesn't have a private jet.
both inevitably consume a LOT more energy than your typical person's luxuries.
How does a jet consume energy without existing?
In a small contained lab environment we can sit there and measure how much of a greenhouse effect different gases have, but historical data doesn't even so much as show a correlation between greenhouse gases and climate change.
That's not true for any of the past 420 million years
as during one of Earth's "greenest" periods in history we had 20 times the present atmospheric CO2, really fucking massively sized insects, dinosaurs, and more.
Kind of irrelevant. We have existent species now. Those are the ones that have to be able to live. Really fucking massively sized insects, and dinosaurs are already dead.
Other data suggests that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow rises in climate, not the other way around
As for global warming itself, it could be fully or partially man caused. I don't know, but again, I don't think it's a problem either way, so I don't really give a crap.
Well, we've got a lot of science now, so we don't need to base our decisions on what you think.
It's entirely possible that the higher CO2 we're seeing is yet another rise following a climate change that we had no part in.
Meanwhile we have seen on well more than one occasion where stupid economic decisions cause global long term collapse. Hurting the economy for what is probably much ado about nothing is therefore pointless
Why did/. vote this bullshit +5, interesting? I would have thought anti-science grandstanding was antithetical to "news for nerds". This place really has dropped in discernment over the past few years hasn't it.
.
If it's not, then you have no basis for claiming there's a pause. A pause is when you can show that there has been at most 0 increase.
Perhaps you should test against the weaker criteria, that it is distinguishable from 0.16C. Then at least you could claim there's been a slowing.
Even the IPCC would admit that; that's why they're in a panic trying to explain "the pause."
Dude, the AR5 was last year. IPCC aren't doing WG1 publications now.
In terms of climate science, analysis of deeper ocean warming is now consistent with radiative forcing from other calculations.
You're ten months behind the science.
It is a travesty that we let any independent thought or dissenting viewpoints be heard.
Well informed, and, dare I say it, nerdy, dissenting views are well tolerated. Anti-science: Climate change denial, anti-vax, intelligent design proponents, moon landing hoaxers... I don't mind these people having a voice, but "+5 Informative"?
I beg to differ.
(Although at time of posting, it's +1 Informative)
And if she's intelligent enough, she could be utilising me as a resource, and still be oblivious to the fact that I have the perception of self and of the passage of time. That is even more likely to be the case if she doesn't.
I think I'm on the same page as you on this, but with even weaker A.I.-fu. We're not going to suddenly jump to Vanamonde, the Mad Mind, or even POne or HAL.
Sure. The problem is if we design the most intelligent AI we can, and its more intelligent than us, then it can design a second generation that is more intelligent than it, and in one small technology step for man, you get a giant technology leap for earth. And its ethics are now very sensitively dependent on how you coded the first one.
Far before we get to such a point we'll have far weaker A.I. that very likely does exactly what we ask of it. Except that we really shouldn't be asking it to do the things we will be.
Sure. Does it have human rights, and does allowing it to power down constitute murder?
One of those steps might be a battlefield drone that does target acquisition, then waits for a person to press the "Kill" switch. How much judgement will that person be using, and how much will he come to trust the target algorithms? How long will the followup continue to make sure the algorithms didn't target an innocent?
Yes, that's an interesting question. The reality is that the second step is it doesn't wait, because it's better and quicker at determining targets. But that's not really AI. That's normal old computing.
Tit for tat fails when one player is powerful enough that they don't have to play the game and/or don't care about the consequences that get imposed for engaging in non-cooperating behavior.
Moreover, this is artificial. It's ethics don't have to be similar to any ethics of an evolved creature, much less a human. They will want what it was coded to want. Guilt and empathy and spite and jealousy are optional. As is the valuing of art or science or sugar based cereals. Maybe the only thing it cares about is generating new theorems of number theory, and nothing else matters. Not life of itself or others, not pain or happiness.
The concept tit for tat implies a whole basis that is not necessary.
I think Musk has a better grasp of the issues than you.
Building the first AI that is more intelligent on any level than humans has to be thought about very carefully, because by the third generation, there will be no UAT.
And if some ill thought out line of code means that it wants to collect smarties, then there's a very real possibility that within a year, all the world's resources will be dedicated to the manufacture of smarties.
And if some ill thought out line of code means that it wants to minimise human suffering, then there's a very real possibility that within a year, humans will be extinct.
And if some ill though out line of code means that it wants to maximise human happiness then there's a very real possibility that within a hear the human population will in tanks, tripping out on crack.
It could be one great technological and scientific leap for humanity, if its well thought out. But you only need to get it slightly wrong, and it will be the end of the human line.
No, my claim is that the politicians have seen in the proclamations of climate researchers an opportunity to funnel money to their cronies and since the only way to get money for climate research is to proclaim what the politicians want to hear, the only people left in climate research are those who buy into that theory.
So you claim that:
1) Climate scientists with tenure will somehow get that withdrawn if they don't proclaim what politicians want to hear?
How? Do the politicians bribe the university to withdraw tenure? On what grounds is the tenure withdrawn?
2) Something happens to professors without tenure to remove their teaching positions and research funding.
Who judges this? Do all universities forward a dossier on the research findings of their teaching staff to the government so that they can determine that the university will or won't be funded for that position? Or does the university de-fund the position themselves if a scientist has unusual climate research findings? If the former, which government department? If the latter, why?
3) Proposals for grants are rejected if the findings are counter to the climate consensus?
How is this achieved? Do the results of the research have to be included in the proposal? If that is the case, why do the research? If that's not the case, how do they know what the study's results will be?
4) Doctoral Students and Postdocs entering the field are somehow encouraged not to produce papers that disagree with the consensus and not to have findings in their thesis that disagree with the consensus.
How are these requirements forced upon young scientists with nothing to lose?
In addition, the world's universities have been staffed by those who believe in the inherent goodness of government for over a generation so that they are blind to how their research is being used.
Well it's good they've got you to make them see how their research is being used. Is your position in a University or in government policy? How is their research being used? Why, do governments want to overstate the risks of climate science when having to spend money that will only pay back outside their term will reduce their chances of re-election? And why does the government review of the IPCC reports always water down the certainty? And why did Dr James Hansen and NASA get blocked from speaking to the public? And how come their reports were always edited by the government to make climate change appear less risky?
As to seeding high schools with their agents, they have been doing that since the idea of government funded education was first developed.
So this false science will affect all education, not just climate science? What are some of the frauds perpetrated on the world by the government from material science faculties? Or are these high school agents encouraged only to enter atmospheric physics?
At this point, if you are not an active agent for such groups you will find it very difficult to get and hold a job in public education.
Aren't schools funded by local body government in the USA? How does the government get to the school boards? Do they rig the elections?
Do the same people control public education in Britain, Germany and Australia? What about China... those teachers are all employed by the state, and they don't need an excuse to change taxation or support their cronies, the system already allows them to do that. But they're moving against greenhouse emissions. Is that for some other reason? What reason is that?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Scientists are generally considered to be powerful. You're thinking of politicians, and the plutocracy.
The forbes most powerful list didn't have any climate scientists this year.
Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one?
No, I find it quite plausible that the sky is blue, so I'm prepared to take that on your word, and my impression of its prior plausibility.
The problem is that you claimed that "Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful," which despite your attempt to cast this as plausible as "the sky is blue", sets off my bullshit detector. So I wonder if you dreamed it up yourself, or if you have some plausible basis, or data.
There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming"
Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.
The Atlantic has two sides, and stretches two hemispheres. Florida is not that large.
That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...
Okay, that statement is from the AR4, but if you're big into actual data, you're claim is that the data shows that "Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity [...] — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.
As sea level is rising , I assume that you mean that hurricane activity has been demonstrated to be decreasing. However, I can't find any confidence calculations in your link. What statistical significance do you claim can be attributed to this decrease in activity?
The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.
Okay, show me the proof that they were wrong, and to what confidence. And give me the names of these researchers that you want fired. And show me who was doing better at the time that we can replace them with.
Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?
Carbon in the biosphere is a cycle dear. How are you going to keep animals from eating the plants, and how are you going to keep the plants from rotting once they die?
It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down?
No. Momentum is conserved during the jump.
The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years.
Yes. It accelerated.
Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold"
Show me the statistical signficance of the first claim.
The second claim is one that you're happy to hang your hat on? How was it received in the scientific literature?
For instance, SB11 [8] fail to
provide any meaningful error analysis in their recent paper and fail to explore even rudimentary questions regarding the robustness of their derived ENSO-regression in the context of natural variability. Addressing these questions in even a cursory manner would have avoided some of the study’s major mistakes. Moreover, the
It discusses current heat content to try to refute that the ocean thermally connected the Antarctic with the Arctic 2.7 million years ago to start the current ice age.
It also casts the recent NASA paper that showed the increase in ocean heat content to be consistent with current estimates of radiative forcing as not finding the "missing heat". If the radiative forcings agree, there's no missing heat.
And raises the question "Why would a 150 year melt cycle be "right on time" in warming world?"
The answer is "Because the melt cycle is on top of a melting trend".
I can only assume that this got modded to +5 because there are too many climate change deniers on slashdot with mod points. I remember when the people posting and modding here had an interest in science.
WTF people? Science denial here? It's supposed to be "news for nerds" not "news for US tea-party morons from the trailer park" is here. Please go there an leave/. to people with something sensible to say.
According to the greenies we're killing 8 fish species every hour. That means we're killing more than 70,000 species each year despite only having about 30,000 fish species in the entire genetic tree.
It just took them until 2014 to write it all down, eh?
Why would Science publish an article tell us what we already know?
This paper finds that the start of the current ice age, being the formation of ice sheets in the northern hemisphere, was due to a change in ocean currents that more closely thermally connected the hemispheres.
So I think the finding is a little more specific than "Past Climate Change Was Caused by Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere".
For the same reason the Democrats are big on trying to do the same. It is a great way to funnel taxpayer dollars to their cronies.
So your claim is that all the world's climate researchers and in cahoots with all the worlds policy development people, to create a false sense of climate threat so that the tax money can be "funneled to coneys"?
Are all the world's university's in on this or is there a head of each climate science faculty that has been infiltrated by a crony scientist?
Are general science publishers like Science and Nature in on this, and are risking their circulation by publishing work they know to be dodgy?
Or are the climate scientists getting this stuff in under their reviewers and editor's noses?
How is this a "great way" for funnel taxpayers dollars? Doesn't it require paying off a whole lot of publishers, a whole lot of scientists, or seeding the high schools with your agents ten years earlier, and taking over the science of climate change with infiltration?
Wouldn't just giving your cronies a lucrative contract be a million times simpler?
Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ.
I hadn't noticed that. Do you have a source on these two facts?
We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.
About two thirds of it, in the case of Rutgers, yes, if you live in New Jersey. I personally didn't fund any of it. But I question your ability to make sensible choices about what a good line of research for a university should be merely because you pay tax. Surely the university board would be better informed and able to make these decisions?
And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government.
Why not the same size? Or smaller with fewer prisons?
Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.
Because university postdocs "instinctively" realize that without more prisons and military spending, they will lose their jobs?
I'm don't think you've thought this through rationally.
As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity.
Sounds important to know.
Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it.
Like mine above? Pointing out that the OP was about the glaciation of the northern hemisphere 2.7million years ago, not current climate change?
Wonderful
It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.
Florida's not a very large sample space.
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. - apparently.
In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize.
What do you think needs to be discarded. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 concentration? The fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect?
You're talking like these aren't well proven points with a century of optics and thermodynamics behind them.
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014.
No, that's just the USA.
Thats right, more record highs means global warming, but more record lows is just temperature.
No, it's that record highs globally means global warming, record lows in the USA only means that 1.9% of the planet is cooler.
The reason that this is not inconsistent is that 1.9% of the planet doesn't have to have the same temperature trend as the global mean.
This from the guy who tried to pass off the USA as the globe, the last 18 years of warming as not warming, and restated the latest 6 months that were the warmest ever recorded as 6 months warmer in the context of 18 years (falsely) not warmer.
Those papers don't relate to the OP's paper, and they certainly don't disagree.
The paper in the OP is about a change in ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. The NASA papers are looking at the current warming.
I note that if you read the abstract of the paper that you first link to, the findings are the net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W/m2 from 2005 to 2013 which does not, as the press release implies, inconsistent with gobal warming, which is estimated to be about 0.9 W/m2.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you think science has nothing to do with politics, you really haven't been paying attention. Scientists are no more or less idealists than anyone else, no more or less corruptible, and in the absence of data that people admit falsifies their hypotheses, can spin their wheels for a generation agreeing with one another and accomplishing nothing (see: string theory).
Yeah, mate. The scientists did all that undergrad and postdoc study so that they could all become idealists instead of doing research.
Thank God we have you to show us where they all went wrong. Politics!
You do realize as the only person smarter than all the scientists, you have an obligation to fix up the politics errors in the climate science papers, and submit the truth for publication.
Yes, we get it: people who doubt global warming are not of your tribe
People who doubt science be it evolution or climate science or that vaccines are effective, or that we landed on the moon are fine is small quantities, but that kind of bullshit in "news for nerds" being moderated up is a bit near the bone.
Yes, we get it: you enjoy trolling the people who like science, but Angel does have a valid point. Stop writing so much bullshit. It's getting offensive.
I mean shit, look at Al Gore, if there was a list of everybody on the planet sorted by personal carbon consumption, he'd probably be in the top 1%.
Gore is carbon neutral isn't he?
I don't care how energy efficient his 20 bedroom house or his private jet are;
Gore doesn't have a private jet.
both inevitably consume a LOT more energy than your typical person's luxuries.
How does a jet consume energy without existing?
In a small contained lab environment we can sit there and measure how much of a greenhouse effect different gases have, but historical data doesn't even so much as show a correlation between greenhouse gases and climate change.
That's not true for any of the past 420 million years
IIt doesn't appear to harm ocean life
Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.
plant life, or land animals either
Bullshit
as during one of Earth's "greenest" periods in history we had 20 times the present atmospheric CO2, really fucking massively sized insects, dinosaurs, and more.
Kind of irrelevant. We have existent species now. Those are the ones that have to be able to live. Really fucking massively sized insects, and dinosaurs are already dead.
Other data suggests that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow rises in climate, not the other way around
Nope:
CO2, increasing since about 1750.
Temp, from about 1900.
As for global warming itself, it could be fully or partially man caused. I don't know, but again, I don't think it's a problem either way, so I don't really give a crap.
Well, we've got a lot of science now, so we don't need to base our decisions on what you think.
It's entirely possible that the higher CO2 we're seeing is yet another rise following a climate change that we had no part in.
No it's not. It's from the combustion of fossil fuels.
And by the way, the arguments for stopping climate change so that we can save the economy are also incredibly stupid and self defeating.
Bullshit
We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage.
Bullshit. Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP
Meanwhile we have seen on well more than one occasion where stupid economic decisions cause global long term collapse. Hurting the economy for what is probably much ado about nothing is therefore pointless
The 10 state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative saw their combined economies increase by 1.6 billion in the first three years. Oh, the pain! The pain! Ouch! Stop the hurt!
/. vote this bullshit +5, interesting? I would have thought anti-science grandstanding was antithetical to "news for nerds". This place really has dropped in discernment over the past few years hasn't it.
.
Why did
Or nearly 79 million Babylonian gesh.
Aw come on, that's clearly cheating. The choice of topic was clearly influenced by the applicability of dance moves.
The anthropogenic warming period is since 1950. The temperature record is easily long enough to analyse that effect.
The statement is mainly that the near surface temperature hiatus appears to be over.
you just have to put up with them and keep them from burning the neighborhood down with their ineptitude.
There seems to be a lot of pyromaniacs in politics in Canada and Australia at the moment. Also in the US Congress.
Wow. 0.1C of warming in 30 years.
Nope. Nearer 0.5C.
That's statistically indistinguishable from 0.
If it's not, then you have no basis for claiming there's a pause. A pause is when you can show that there has been at most 0 increase.
Perhaps you should test against the weaker criteria, that it is distinguishable from 0.16C. Then at least you could claim there's been a slowing.
Even the IPCC would admit that; that's why they're in a panic trying to explain "the pause."
Dude, the AR5 was last year. IPCC aren't doing WG1 publications now.
In terms of climate science, analysis of deeper ocean warming is now consistent with radiative forcing from other calculations. You're ten months behind the science.
It is a travesty that we let any independent thought or dissenting viewpoints be heard.
Well informed, and, dare I say it, nerdy, dissenting views are well tolerated. Anti-science: Climate change denial, anti-vax, intelligent design proponents, moon landing hoaxers ... I don't mind these people having a voice, but "+5 Informative"?
I beg to differ.
(Although at time of posting, it's +1 Informative)
Absolutely.
And if she's intelligent enough, she could be utilising me as a resource, and still be oblivious to the fact that I have the perception of self and of the passage of time. That is even more likely to be the case if she doesn't.
I think I'm on the same page as you on this, but with even weaker A.I.-fu. We're not going to suddenly jump to Vanamonde, the Mad Mind, or even POne or HAL.
Sure. The problem is if we design the most intelligent AI we can, and its more intelligent than us, then it can design a second generation that is more intelligent than it, and in one small technology step for man, you get a giant technology leap for earth. And its ethics are now very sensitively dependent on how you coded the first one.
Far before we get to such a point we'll have far weaker A.I. that very likely does exactly what we ask of it. Except that we really shouldn't be asking it to do the things we will be.
Sure. Does it have human rights, and does allowing it to power down constitute murder?
One of those steps might be a battlefield drone that does target acquisition, then waits for a person to press the "Kill" switch. How much judgement will that person be using, and how much will he come to trust the target algorithms? How long will the followup continue to make sure the algorithms didn't target an innocent?
Yes, that's an interesting question. The reality is that the second step is it doesn't wait, because it's better and quicker at determining targets. But that's not really AI. That's normal old computing.
No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to use RSS because Roy Spencer is a warmist stooge.
Ah.
Tit for tat fails when one player is powerful enough that they don't have to play the game and/or don't care about the consequences that get imposed for engaging in non-cooperating behavior.
Moreover, this is artificial. It's ethics don't have to be similar to any ethics of an evolved creature, much less a human. They will want what it was coded to want. Guilt and empathy and spite and jealousy are optional. As is the valuing of art or science or sugar based cereals. Maybe the only thing it cares about is generating new theorems of number theory, and nothing else matters. Not life of itself or others, not pain or happiness.
The concept tit for tat implies a whole basis that is not necessary.
I think Musk has a better grasp of the issues than you.
Building the first AI that is more intelligent on any level than humans has to be thought about very carefully, because by the third generation, there will be no UAT.
And if some ill thought out line of code means that it wants to collect smarties, then there's a very real possibility that within a year, all the world's resources will be dedicated to the manufacture of smarties.
And if some ill thought out line of code means that it wants to minimise human suffering, then there's a very real possibility that within a year, humans will be extinct.
And if some ill though out line of code means that it wants to maximise human happiness then there's a very real possibility that within a hear the human population will in tanks, tripping out on crack.
It could be one great technological and scientific leap for humanity, if its well thought out. But you only need to get it slightly wrong, and it will be the end of the human line.
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014.
Actually it's now about 1.45 to 1 in 2014.
No, my claim is that the politicians have seen in the proclamations of climate researchers an opportunity to funnel money to their cronies and since the only way to get money for climate research is to proclaim what the politicians want to hear, the only people left in climate research are those who buy into that theory.
So you claim that:
1) Climate scientists with tenure will somehow get that withdrawn if they don't proclaim what politicians want to hear?
How? Do the politicians bribe the university to withdraw tenure? On what grounds is the tenure withdrawn?
2) Something happens to professors without tenure to remove their teaching positions and research funding.
Who judges this? Do all universities forward a dossier on the research findings of their teaching staff to the government so that they can determine that the university will or won't be funded for that position? Or does the university de-fund the position themselves if a scientist has unusual climate research findings? If the former, which government department? If the latter, why?
3) Proposals for grants are rejected if the findings are counter to the climate consensus?
How is this achieved? Do the results of the research have to be included in the proposal? If that is the case, why do the research? If that's not the case, how do they know what the study's results will be?
4) Doctoral Students and Postdocs entering the field are somehow encouraged not to produce papers that disagree with the consensus and not to have findings in their thesis that disagree with the consensus.
How are these requirements forced upon young scientists with nothing to lose?
In addition, the world's universities have been staffed by those who believe in the inherent goodness of government for over a generation so that they are blind to how their research is being used.
Well it's good they've got you to make them see how their research is being used. Is your position in a University or in government policy? How is their research being used? Why, do governments want to overstate the risks of climate science when having to spend money that will only pay back outside their term will reduce their chances of re-election? And why does the government review of the IPCC reports always water down the certainty? And why did Dr James Hansen and NASA get blocked from speaking to the public? And how come their reports were always edited by the government to make climate change appear less risky?
As to seeding high schools with their agents, they have been doing that since the idea of government funded education was first developed.
So this false science will affect all education, not just climate science? What are some of the frauds perpetrated on the world by the government from material science faculties? Or are these high school agents encouraged only to enter atmospheric physics?
At this point, if you are not an active agent for such groups you will find it very difficult to get and hold a job in public education.
Aren't schools funded by local body government in the USA? How does the government get to the school boards? Do they rig the elections? ... those teachers are all employed by the state, and they don't need an excuse to change taxation or support their cronies, the system already allows them to do that. But they're moving against greenhouse emissions. Is that for some other reason? What reason is that?
Do the same people control public education in Britain, Germany and Australia? What about China
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Scientists are generally considered to be powerful. You're thinking of politicians, and the plutocracy.
The forbes most powerful list didn't have any climate scientists this year.
Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one?
No, I find it quite plausible that the sky is blue, so I'm prepared to take that on your word, and my impression of its prior plausibility.
The problem is that you claimed that "Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful," which despite your attempt to cast this as plausible as "the sky is blue", sets off my bullshit detector. So I wonder if you dreamed it up yourself, or if you have some plausible basis, or data.
There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming"
What about Remote Sensing Systems.?
Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.
The Atlantic has two sides, and stretches two hemispheres. Florida is not that large.
That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...
Okay, that statement is from the AR4, but if you're big into actual data, you're claim is that the data shows that "Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity [...] — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.
As sea level is rising , I assume that you mean that hurricane activity has been demonstrated to be decreasing. However, I can't find any confidence calculations in your link. What statistical significance do you claim can be attributed to this decrease in activity?
The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.
Okay, show me the proof that they were wrong, and to what confidence. And give me the names of these researchers that you want fired. And show me who was doing better at the time that we can replace them with.
Plants love CO2.
Yes, but not equally. Poison ivy loves it more than woody plants. And coral reefs, and so ocean productivity hate it.
Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?
Carbon in the biosphere is a cycle dear. How are you going to keep animals from eating the plants, and how are you going to keep the plants from rotting once they die?
It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down?
No. Momentum is conserved during the jump.
The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years.
Yes. It accelerated.
Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold"
Show me the statistical signficance of the first claim.
The second claim is one that you're happy to hang your hat on? How was it received in the scientific literature?
For instance, SB11 [8] fail to provide any meaningful error analysis in their recent paper and fail to explore even rudimentary questions regarding the robustness of their derived ENSO-regression in the context of natural variability.
Addressing these questions in even a cursory manner would have avoided some of the study’s major mistakes. Moreover, the
Do you have a study that finds this while controlling for environmental factors?
This post is offtopic and wrong.
/. to people with something sensible to say.
It discusses current heat content to try to refute that the ocean thermally connected the Antarctic with the Arctic 2.7 million years ago to start the current ice age.
It also casts the recent NASA paper that showed the increase in ocean heat content to be consistent with current estimates of radiative forcing as not finding the "missing heat". If the radiative forcings agree, there's no missing heat.
And raises the question "Why would a 150 year melt cycle be "right on time" in warming world?"
The answer is "Because the melt cycle is on top of a melting trend".
I can only assume that this got modded to +5 because there are too many climate change deniers on slashdot with mod points. I remember when the people posting and modding here had an interest in science.
WTF people? Science denial here? It's supposed to be "news for nerds" not "news for US tea-party morons from the trailer park" is here. Please go there an leave
According to the greenies we're killing 8 fish species every hour. That means we're killing more than 70,000 species each year despite only having about 30,000 fish species in the entire genetic tree.
The 30,000 is only described species.
It just took them until 2014 to write it all down, eh?
Why would Science publish an article tell us what we already know?
This paper finds that the start of the current ice age, being the formation of ice sheets in the northern hemisphere, was due to a change in ocean currents that more closely thermally connected the hemispheres.
So I think the finding is a little more specific than "Past Climate Change Was Caused by Ocean, Not Just the Atmosphere".
For the same reason the Democrats are big on trying to do the same. It is a great way to funnel taxpayer dollars to their cronies.
So your claim is that all the world's climate researchers and in cahoots with all the worlds policy development people, to create a false sense of climate threat so that the tax money can be "funneled to coneys"?
Are all the world's university's in on this or is there a head of each climate science faculty that has been infiltrated by a crony scientist?
Are general science publishers like Science and Nature in on this, and are risking their circulation by publishing work they know to be dodgy?
Or are the climate scientists getting this stuff in under their reviewers and editor's noses?
How is this a "great way" for funnel taxpayers dollars? Doesn't it require paying off a whole lot of publishers, a whole lot of scientists, or seeding the high schools with your agents ten years earlier, and taking over the science of climate change with infiltration?
Wouldn't just giving your cronies a lucrative contract be a million times simpler?
Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ.
I hadn't noticed that. Do you have a source on these two facts?
We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.
About two thirds of it, in the case of Rutgers, yes, if you live in New Jersey. I personally didn't fund any of it.
But I question your ability to make sensible choices about what a good line of research for a university should be merely because you pay tax. Surely the university board would be better informed and able to make these decisions?
And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government.
Why not the same size? Or smaller with fewer prisons?
Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.
Because university postdocs "instinctively" realize that without more prisons and military spending, they will lose their jobs?
I'm don't think you've thought this through rationally.
As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity.
Sounds important to know.
Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it.
Like mine above? Pointing out that the OP was about the glaciation of the northern hemisphere 2.7million years ago, not current climate change?
Wonderful
It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite [weather.com] to the prediction.
Florida's not a very large sample space.
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. - apparently.
In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize.
What do you think needs to be discarded. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 concentration? The fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect?
You're talking like these aren't well proven points with a century of optics and thermodynamics behind them.
Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014.
No, that's just the USA.
Thats right, more record highs means global warming, but more record lows is just temperature.
No, it's that record highs globally means global warming, record lows in the USA only means that 1.9% of the planet is cooler.
The reason that this is not inconsistent is that 1.9% of the planet doesn't have to have the same temperature trend as the global mean.
18 years of no warming is just temperature,
This 18 years?. Because that's warming.
but 6 months of warmer is climate.
Six months of warmest.
No one believe your lies anymore
This from the guy who tried to pass off the USA as the globe, the last 18 years of warming as not warming, and restated the latest 6 months that were the warmest ever recorded as 6 months warmer in the context of 18 years (falsely) not warmer.
Care to explain yourself on any of those points?
The paper in the OP is about a change in ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. The NASA papers are looking at the current warming.
I note that if you read the abstract of the paper that you first link to, the findings are the net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W/m2 from 2005 to 2013 which does not, as the press release implies, inconsistent with gobal warming, which is estimated to be about 0.9 W/m2.
And I note that your second paper, while there is a 150 year cycle, Greenland is also losing mass on top of that. Chart from this page.
I believe Mr. Hansen left shortly after this.
About nine months later.