It's important to realise that individual academics and students within instituations don't directly pay for access to most papers from our budgets just like we don't directly pay for "core" software (we do pay for some more specialised software out of our own budgets but windows, office, matlab, endnote and so on are all covered centrally). Those things are paid for centrally as part of block subscriptions. If academics actually had to pay the prices that are shown to the general public I suspect there would be a very quick move towards open access journals.
They probably use film badges, so there is one (or more) for the worker, and a control badge that isn't exposed, the dosage is the difference; expose the control badge a little bit and the dosage computed is lower. Also it's my understanding that multiple badges are used to compute the whole body dose and some parts of the body are weighted higher than others. If you were working on a contaminated floor, and wore both your lapel badge and belt badge on your lapel, the computed whole body dose would be lower because your belt badge was farther from the radiation and the lower dosage would counted more toward your whole body dose.
The point is that when a salaried worker hits the hard limit for the year, he still get paid for the rest of the year, where the contractor hit the the limit his 3 month renewable contract just doesn't get picked up again. I knew a guy that worked in Nuclear Medicine and they wore 3 film badge dosimeters, a ring badge, a lapel badge and a belt badge, predictable the ring badge would be crazy high, the lapel badge would be moderate and the belt badge low; after a while they got suspicious and swapped the lapel badge and the belt badge and predictable the belt badge that they wore on the lapel read low and the lapel badge they wore on their belt read moderate.
Interesting starting point, the real question now becomes the Earth presents a surface of 126,916,372,000,000,000 m^2 (1.27*10^17) to the sun, receiving 1413 W/m^2 = 89879688605803 or 8.98 * 10^13 watts; the ice mass of Greenland and Antarctica is 28728096 Km^3 * 10^12 Kg/Km^3 = 287,280,960,000,000,000,000 or 2.87 *10^20 Kg , the Enthalpy of Fusion for Water is 334000 J/Kg * 2.87*10^20 = 9.58 *10^25 J, 9.58 *10^25J (W/S) / 8.98 * 10^13 W = 1.0668 * 10^12 seconds of sunlight! that 12,347,222/365 = 33,828 years worth of sunlight just to melt the ICE! Somebody please show me my error, because I can't believe even a climatologist with a PhD. could seriously consider the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland melting within the time the remaining before the next Ice-age.
I'm sorry, this stuff is difficult. It isn't a couple of sound bites and a snarky comment. To understand it requires a fairly concerted effort to read and digest multidisciplinary topics.
I'll bet that Bernie Madoff said something like that to his investors too. The Inconvenient Truth is, your trying to change people's behaviors in ways that will obviously cause them considerable expense. To do that you'll have to explain it to people in a clear concise manner that is logically consistent and build from valid premises. Using more than 3 equations means you fail, as well as if any of the equations exceeds 5th grade math skills. Cite a study behind a paywall you fail, as well as anything published by the UN. Anybody involved in the climategate emails needs to be fed to the wolves.
It's not the CO2 from glaciers that's worrisome, but methane in the sediments. It's far more potent greenhouse has then CO2, and we have quite a bit of evidence in our studies of the issue (specifically historic evidence in relation to atmospheric concentrations of methane relative to temperature of the period) that suggests that once we hit the critical point where methane starts to get released, reaction will accelerate at a completely different rate from now and become utterly unstoppable.
Well let's see what the warmists have to say about that
The methane bubbles coming from the Siberian shelf are part of a system that takes centuries to respond to changes in temperature. The methane from the Arctic lakes is also potentially part of a new, enhanced, chronic methane release to the atmosphere. Neither of them could release a catastrophic amount of methane (hundreds of Gtons) within a short time frame (a few years or less). There isn’t some huge bubble of methane waiting to erupt as soon as its roof melts. Much ado about methane
and
... the methane worst case does not suddenly spell the extinction of human life on Earth. It does not lead to a runaway greenhouse. The worst-case methane scenario stands comparable to what CO2 can do. What CO2 will do, under business-as-usual, not in a wild blow-the-doors-off unpleasant surprise, but just in the absence of any pleasant surprises (like emission controls). An Arctic methane worst-case scenario
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is above average this year; not sure what land ice is doing, but if sea ice is up, land ice is likely to be up as well. Greenland is pretty well iced in this winter too.
That's over the top, not even the beeb is going all CGW on this, the fact is the average temps up there right now are averaging in the -10 through -30C, so any fresh water exposed is going to freeze pretty damn quick and any salt water is going to freeze just a smidgen less than PDQ as well. Most of the fresh water is coming from Siberia, from the rivers draining spring run off into the Arctic Ocean and fresh water floats on top of salt water and the wind piles it up into the gyre. The data set they are working only back 15 years, this could be a cyclic phenomena and we'd be unlikely to see it without some older classified data.
Used softcover is $54.99 at amazon, hard cover is $150.00! I might just have to root around in my parents basement to see if my copy had survived 40 years down there.
The picture is published at "Is this life on Venus? Russian scientist claims to have seen 'scorpion' in probe photographs"; I don't think it look like a scorpion though, more like the bio-luminous worm like thingies in the movie "Pitch Black" to me. The photos are way to grainey to get anywhere past the "if you squint your eyes and tilt your head" stage. The book "There's Somebody Else on the Moon" had way better photos.
It wasn't always like that, in 2009 the went to beautifully Copenhagen for cop15 and it snowed, the POTUS had to leave early to beat a blizzard in DC. In Florida Iguanas and snakes was falling out of the trees too cold to hang on and the coral was dying from the cold. Now they only go to places guaranteed to be warm enough to not be an embarrassment for a global warming conference.
Why are you under the impression global warming will stop? What happens when its 10c above what it is now? 15?
That's the way it work, as use add CO2 to the atmosphere, the effect of each additional unit of CO2 diminishes, when it gets a little warmer the air holds more water vapor which absorbs different wavelengths and makes it even warmer while each unit of water vapor has a diminishing warming effect, then when the water vapor condenses into clouds sometimes it make it warmer like at night and sometimes it makes it cooler like during the day. The more clouds usually means more rain and rain cools the surface. Sooner or later the negative feedbacks increase in strength and a new equilibrium is established.
Even the most rabid Warmistas aren't talking about double-digit warming anymore, it climate change now not global warming, I guess you didn't get the Email~
I'm not sure that is correct, from what I've seen people will farm anywhere they can find a patch of dirt. Most of those patches of dirt are pretty pathetic, especially the ones that aren't taken away from them by force, yet if you double dig or use a subsoiler if your mechanized, put down lots of compost and green and animal manures the results can be pretty amazing.
That's the way coral atolls work, they are always just barely above sea-level, sea goes up, they build up a little more coral sand, sea goes down and some coral sand blows a way. If the Maldives are having a problem it's because they are either over fishing, over harvesting coral or polluting the local ocean.
Actually I'd be surprised if their are 1st responder comm systems that aren't off the shelf with hardware encryption. "encryption an option for the times when you REALLY need it" is a bad idea because when you use it, it become obvious that you "REALLY need it", kind of like putting a "kick me" sign on the back of a one legged man in the ass kicking contest. If your going to encrypt something, you should encrypt everything, just like if you shred some documents you should shred them all.
"97% of active climate scientists" is only 79 people, and to be honest climatology is a science? It would be interesting to see how many of those 79 active scientists have a degree in climatology; even Pachauri is an Economist.
Sorry you are correct, I was confusing that paper with Menne et al's On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, submitted Aug 2009, which credits Watts not co-authors him. I do believe that Judith Curry was in the position of having objections to one or more of the BEST papers that she was listed as a co-author on.
That's not a temperature plot, it's a CO2 plot; I agree that it's disconcerting, but Liu et al is not only able to hindcast making future predictions about temperature.
It's actually pretty funny to people who know something about how computers really do and don't work, that you expect that thousands of different equations can be fed hundreds of thousands data points and be iterated over millions of times and not get an answer that hasn't veered off into random noise due to round-off error alone! The simple truth is we are just not smart enough to model the climate, and even if we were, we aren't smart enough to build a computer to accurately run the model.
Slashdot Mirror
It's important to realise that individual academics and students within instituations don't directly pay for access to most papers from our budgets just like we don't directly pay for "core" software (we do pay for some more specialised software out of our own budgets but windows, office, matlab, endnote and so on are all covered centrally). Those things are paid for centrally as part of block subscriptions. If academics actually had to pay the prices that are shown to the general public I suspect there would be a very quick move towards open access journals.
That's part of the 40-44% Facilities and Administrative costs (F&A) that comes out of your grant.
They probably use film badges, so there is one (or more) for the worker, and a control badge that isn't exposed, the dosage is the difference; expose the control badge a little bit and the dosage computed is lower. Also it's my understanding that multiple badges are used to compute the whole body dose and some parts of the body are weighted higher than others. If you were working on a contaminated floor, and wore both your lapel badge and belt badge on your lapel, the computed whole body dose would be lower because your belt badge was farther from the radiation and the lower dosage would counted more toward your whole body dose.
The point is that when a salaried worker hits the hard limit for the year, he still get paid for the rest of the year, where the contractor hit the the limit his 3 month renewable contract just doesn't get picked up again. I knew a guy that worked in Nuclear Medicine and they wore 3 film badge dosimeters, a ring badge, a lapel badge and a belt badge, predictable the ring badge would be crazy high, the lapel badge would be moderate and the belt badge low; after a while they got suspicious and swapped the lapel badge and the belt badge and predictable the belt badge that they wore on the lapel read low and the lapel badge they wore on their belt read moderate.
Thanks, the numbers I got were insane, still 23 years worth of planetary insolation is still a lot of energy
and Air temps are running -20 thru -30C up there now
Interesting starting point, the real question now becomes
the Earth presents a surface of 126,916,372,000,000,000 m^2 (1.27*10^17) to the sun, receiving 1413 W/m^2 = 89879688605803 or 8.98 * 10^13 watts;
the ice mass of Greenland and Antarctica is 28728096 Km^3 * 10^12 Kg/Km^3 = 287,280,960,000,000,000,000 or 2.87 *10^20 Kg ,
the Enthalpy of Fusion for Water is 334000 J/Kg * 2.87*10^20 = 9.58 *10^25 J,
9.58 *10^25J (W/S) / 8.98 * 10^13 W = 1.0668 * 10^12 seconds of sunlight! that 12,347,222/365 = 33,828 years worth of sunlight just to melt the ICE! Somebody please show me my error, because I can't believe even a climatologist with a PhD. could seriously consider the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland melting within the time the remaining before the next Ice-age.
this Chinese study shows that in Central Eastern Tibet the MWP was at least as warm as today.
I'm sorry, this stuff is difficult. It isn't a couple of sound bites and a snarky comment. To understand it requires a fairly concerted effort to read and digest multidisciplinary topics.
I'll bet that Bernie Madoff said something like that to his investors too. The Inconvenient Truth is, your trying to change people's behaviors in ways that will obviously cause them considerable expense. To do that you'll have to explain it to people in a clear concise manner that is logically consistent and build from valid premises. Using more than 3 equations means you fail, as well as if any of the equations exceeds 5th grade math skills. Cite a study behind a paywall you fail, as well as anything published by the UN. Anybody involved in the climategate emails needs to be fed to the wolves.
It's not the CO2 from glaciers that's worrisome, but methane in the sediments. It's far more potent greenhouse has then CO2, and we have quite a bit of evidence in our studies of the issue (specifically historic evidence in relation to atmospheric concentrations of methane relative to temperature of the period) that suggests that once we hit the critical point where methane starts to get released, reaction will accelerate at a completely different rate from now and become utterly unstoppable.
Well let's see what the warmists have to say about that
and
seems they aren't real excited about methane.
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is above average this year; not sure what land ice is doing, but if sea ice is up, land ice is likely to be up as well. Greenland is pretty well iced in this winter too.
That's over the top, not even the beeb is going all CGW on this, the fact is the average temps up there right now are averaging in the -10 through -30C, so any fresh water exposed is going to freeze pretty damn quick and any salt water is going to freeze just a smidgen less than PDQ as well. Most of the fresh water is coming from Siberia, from the rivers draining spring run off into the Arctic Ocean and fresh water floats on top of salt water and the wind piles it up into the gyre. The data set they are working only back 15 years, this could be a cyclic phenomena and we'd be unlikely to see it without some older classified data.
Used softcover is $54.99 at amazon, hard cover is $150.00! I might just have to root around in my parents basement to see if my copy had survived 40 years down there.
The picture is published at "Is this life on Venus? Russian scientist claims to have seen 'scorpion' in probe photographs"; I don't think it look like a scorpion though, more like the bio-luminous worm like thingies in the movie "Pitch Black" to me. The photos are way to grainey to get anywhere past the "if you squint your eyes and tilt your head" stage. The book "There's Somebody Else on the Moon" had way better photos.
It wasn't always like that, in 2009 the went to beautifully Copenhagen for cop15 and it snowed, the POTUS had to leave early to beat a blizzard in DC. In Florida Iguanas and snakes was falling out of the trees too cold to hang on and the coral was dying from the cold. Now they only go to places guaranteed to be warm enough to not be an embarrassment for a global warming conference.
Why are you under the impression global warming will stop? What happens when its 10c above what it is now? 15?
That's the way it work, as use add CO2 to the atmosphere, the effect of each additional unit of CO2 diminishes, when it gets a little warmer the air holds more water vapor which absorbs different wavelengths and makes it even warmer while each unit of water vapor has a diminishing warming effect, then when the water vapor condenses into clouds sometimes it make it warmer like at night and sometimes it makes it cooler like during the day. The more clouds usually means more rain and rain cools the surface. Sooner or later the negative feedbacks increase in strength and a new equilibrium is established.
Even the most rabid Warmistas aren't talking about double-digit warming anymore, it climate change now not global warming, I guess you didn't get the Email~
People farm where crops grow well.
I'm not sure that is correct, from what I've seen people will farm anywhere they can find a patch of dirt. Most of those patches of dirt are pretty pathetic, especially the ones that aren't taken away from them by force, yet if you double dig or use a subsoiler if your mechanized, put down lots of compost and green and animal manures the results can be pretty amazing.
moving goalposts every time they are proven wrong
Let me guess, since 2011 was the ninth, hottest since whatever ; ..., perhaps 2012 will be the 12th hottest.
The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for
That's the way coral atolls work, they are always just barely above sea-level, sea goes up, they build up a little more coral sand, sea goes down and some coral sand blows a way. If the Maldives are having a problem it's because they are either over fishing, over harvesting coral or polluting the local ocean.
Actually I'd be surprised if their are 1st responder comm systems that aren't off the shelf with hardware encryption. "encryption an option for the times when you REALLY need it" is a bad idea because when you use it, it become obvious that you "REALLY need it", kind of like putting a "kick me" sign on the back of a one legged man in the ass kicking contest. If your going to encrypt something, you should encrypt everything, just like if you shred some documents you should shred them all.
"97% of active climate scientists" is only 79 people, and to be honest climatology is a science? It would be interesting to see how many of those 79 active scientists have a degree in climatology; even Pachauri is an Economist.
Sorry you are correct, I was confusing that paper with Menne et al's On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, submitted Aug 2009, which credits Watts not co-authors him. I do believe that Judith Curry was in the position of having objections to one or more of the BEST papers that she was listed as a co-author on.
That's not a temperature plot, it's a CO2 plot; I agree that it's disconcerting, but Liu et al is not only able to hindcast making future predictions about temperature.
Global Mean Temperature
Not to worry Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068
It's actually pretty funny to people who know something about how computers really do and don't work, that you expect that thousands of different equations can be fed hundreds of thousands data points and be iterated over millions of times and not get an answer that hasn't veered off into random noise due to round-off error alone! The simple truth is we are just not smart enough to model the climate, and even if we were, we aren't smart enough to build a computer to accurately run the model.