The problem is tree growth rings aren't a good temperature proxy, their growth is more a proxy of rainfall and CO2 concentrations than temperature when all other things are equal, and all other things being equal is actually a rare occurrence. I've got 3 maple trees, all planted at the same time and one that's 5 years younger growing in my yard, the youngest is huge compared to the other older three.
Or even worse, amateurs who do not know how to read the data using it to 'prove' nonsense.
That is the frustrations with releasing raw data... even if you are open, that openness will be used against you by people who really want to not only find a particular answer, but smear anyone who actually can read the data and informs them they are wrong.
I think the interesting point is that your correct, but in this case there is a roles reversal. The Climatologists are taking a dataset that is both sparse temporally and spatially, measured by instruments never intended to be used for the purposes they are being used for and typically installed in a manner that introduces errors in the majority of the instruments who then adjust, normalize and homogenize the data using methods that are often poorly defined and just expect everyone to except it on their authority. When ever someone has the audacity to question their data or methods, the result is a vigorous ad hominem attacks which reeks more of politics or religion than scientific debate.
When was the last time a nuclear physicist ever said "The science is settled"?
British Council, British Petroleum,
Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board,
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS),
Commercial Union,
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU),
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC),
Department of Energy,
Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA),
Department of Health,
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),
Environment Agency,
Forestry Commission,
Greenpeace International,
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany,
Leverhulme Trust,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (MAFF),
National Power,
National Rivers Authority,
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC),
Norwich Union,
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate,
Overseas Development Administration (ODA),
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates,
Royal Society,
Scientific Consultants,
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell,
Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman,
Tate and Lyle,
UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd.,
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP),
United States Department of Energy,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). History of the Climatic Research Unit
if excepting money from Big-Oil or Big-Energy taints you, the the CRU is tainted.
It's only a problem when the division charges a different fee to it's owner than it would to an outside client, and the parent corp doesn't engage in competitive bidding.
With all of these near-billion dollar ventures showing a bogus loss, isn't Uncle Sam losing out on tax revenue?
No if "Gone in 60 Seconds" inc. losses it's ass on the movie, Buena Vista Distributors INC makes a metric boat load on it and pays the taxes, the Actors or at least their L.L.C.'s get paid more and pay more taxes; somebody pays the taxes eventually.
Since the part of the virus they are targeting is the part the virus uses to infect human cells, if it morphs the virus will not be able to infect human cells.
The concrete road beds start flat and each slab stays flat but may heave slightly compared to it's contiguous neighbors; also the seems are vulnerable to freeze/thaw damage. Asphalt flows smoothly without slab heaving doesn't have much freeze/thaw damage, but it displays plastic deformation so it tends to trough with wheeled traffic. What I'm seeing installed on our expressways is a thick concrete base that's rolled like asphalt rather than poured, which is then laminated with an asphalt top-layer to seal the expansion joints from freeze/thaw damage.
Titanium dioxide is one of the safest, most bio-inert substances around. Titanium is used for dental and medical implants because it's oxide coating is completely bio-compatible. It's also the primary pigment in every paint your likely to see, it's why white paint is white; if there were any environmental problems with it, they would have shown up decades ago.
Hey watch for two papers, one by Christian Beer et. al, and Miguel Mahecha et. al. both of the Max Plank inst. published online by the journal Science at the Science Express Web site about 2 hours ago.
Vessels must not come within 20 meters of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law.
The safety zone has been put in place to protect members of the response effort, the installation and maintenance of oil containment boom, the operation of response equipment and protection of the environment by limiting access to and through deployed protective boom.
In areas where vessels operators cannot avoid the 20-meter rule, they are required to be cautious of boom and boom operations by transiting at a safe speed and distance.
Violation of a safety zone can result in up to a $40,000 civil penalty. Willful violations may result in a class D felony.
seems like their is a fair amount of wiggle-room for vessels, no restriction on just walking the beach or over-flights. I just don't see it as a big deal, I'd love to get all self-righteous and sling some mud at our illegal-alien president and his administration, but this just isn't it.
... we still manage to grow enough for everyone (those who go hungry do so because of poor distribution, not because there isn't enough). As it is we pay farmers in the US to not grow their crops so food prices will be higher..
It may, with the increased economic burden of carbon taxes on the general populations of the first world, I don't see distribution problems easing. Additionally I'd imagine that the ability or third world countries to provide for themselves will be reduced.
One side note when considering economic viability. Which do you think is better for the health of a community and nation - distributed local power generation interlinked across the nation, or a few key locations and a centralized top-down authority removed from the community administrating it.
One thing not being addressed is infrastructure cost, for example a friend of mine is a power-station operator at a local paper plant, they consume waste ligin to produce power so fuel costs are actually negative because they don't have to pay for waste disposal, yet they are barely able to make a profit at the power-station because the lease costs on the equipment to tie into the commercial power-grid for backup is almost identical as purchasing the power commercially! Our distribution system is in serious need of upgrading adding more smart-grid technology and HVDC capacity is critical, we have to be able to move power from areas with excess to areas in shortage or no matter what we do generation wise it'll just be for local usage. Germany is already saturated with renewable power, some areas actually are charged a negative fee for power usage, while others are surcharged at the same time due to deficiencies in power distribution systems. England has just experiments with a shut-down of wind-turbines to see how it would work. There is no reason to make it if nobody can use it.
As near as I can figure out the logic of Apocalyptic Global Warming is; 1. The current rise in computed global average temperatures is unprecedented, 2. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Earth to reduce the rate IR energy is re-radiated into space, 3. Anthropogenic activity is causing CO2 levels to rise at unprecedented rates; Therefore Global Warming is predominately anthropogenic, and the current rate of temperature increase will accelerate to catastrophic levels; additionaly computer modeling support the logic.
The opposing point of view is 1. a. the warming measured isn't unprecedented, MWP Roman WP etc, 1.b, the ground stations currently used are both spacialy and temporally sparse and 69% of US stations have errors greater than 2C, 1. c, the statistical methods to global average are suspect and adjustments to the data record to eliminate warming trends other than CO2 have been demonstrated to cause erroneous warming to the exclusion of erroneous cooling. 2. the sensitivity of the warming in regards to CO2 increases is not accurately determined. 3. historically levels of CO2 have been higher When the validity of all of the premises are disputed then it follows the conclusion is also.
Except the earth, in its state before human civilization, was largely able to compensate for what it produced (catastrophic extinction-level events aside; since I'm guessing we'd like to avoid those today as well). Plants need CO2, an abundance of CO2 meant more plants. Then human civilization began blossoming, which started by clearing forests, which reduced the ability of the earth to compensate for itself. Then industry began blossoming, which introduced more CO2 into the atmosphere than the species of earth had ever evolved to compensate for.
That's certainly the conventional wisdom but,
Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation. Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999
It's probably a lot more complicated than you were led to believe; quite frankly I'd be surprised if it weren't more complicated than we are able to model.
The heat capacity of the atmosphere and earth's surface is so low, that it varies drastically within a few hours every day. Bodies of water, on the other hand, hold about 100x as much heat per unit volume. I have been debating global warming for a damn long time, and NOBODY has ever had a damn thing to say about the real global heat content (including oceans), just debating bullshit air temperatures, which account for almost nothing compared to ocean temps.
Actually the 3 day average sea surface temperature anomaly for 3 - 15 June 2010 is about -0.75C, 60 day average is about +0.6. Air temps measured by satellite are at +0.44 and are still trending downward.
Most people who are pro war would say that the muslims are a threat. Whether they are or not is not a concern to them. In their mind, the muslims ARE a threat. And thus it's fine to kill millions of them.
Wahhabists are the threat, not Muslims in general, the Wahhabism is a threat to Muslims as well as non-Muslims. The real question is will we fight them on our turf or their's?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is tree growth rings aren't a good temperature proxy, their growth is more a proxy of rainfall and CO2 concentrations than temperature when all other things are equal, and all other things being equal is actually a rare occurrence. I've got 3 maple trees, all planted at the same time and one that's 5 years younger growing in my yard, the youngest is huge compared to the other older three.
Or even worse, amateurs who do not know how to read the data using it to 'prove' nonsense.
That is the frustrations with releasing raw data... even if you are open, that openness will be used against you by people who really want to not only find a particular answer, but smear anyone who actually can read the data and informs them they are wrong.
I think the interesting point is that your correct, but in this case there is a roles reversal. The Climatologists are taking a dataset that is both sparse temporally and spatially, measured by instruments never intended to be used for the purposes they are being used for and typically installed in a manner that introduces errors in the majority of the instruments who then adjust, normalize and homogenize the data using methods that are often poorly defined and just expect everyone to except it on their authority. When ever someone has the audacity to question their data or methods, the result is a vigorous ad hominem attacks which reeks more of politics or religion than scientific debate.
When was the last time a nuclear physicist ever said "The science is settled"?
You mean like
if excepting money from Big-Oil or Big-Energy taints you, the the CRU is tainted.
good point, I do tend to avoid movies with known Scientologists in them
It's only a problem when the division charges a different fee to it's owner than it would to an outside client, and the parent corp doesn't engage in competitive bidding.
Gross Profits, or Gross Receipts?
With all of these near-billion dollar ventures showing a bogus loss, isn't Uncle Sam losing out on tax revenue?
No if "Gone in 60 Seconds" inc. losses it's ass on the movie, Buena Vista Distributors INC makes a metric boat load on it and pays the taxes, the Actors or at least their L.L.C.'s get paid more and pay more taxes; somebody pays the taxes eventually.
Since the part of the virus they are targeting is the part the virus uses to infect human cells, if it morphs the virus will not be able to infect human cells.
It's going to wash out of the atmosphere anyways sooner or later, I think the unit of measure is dog's pissing on a fire hydrant per fortnight.
The concrete road beds start flat and each slab stays flat but may heave slightly compared to it's contiguous neighbors; also the seems are vulnerable to freeze/thaw damage. Asphalt flows smoothly without slab heaving doesn't have much freeze/thaw damage, but it displays plastic deformation so it tends to trough with wheeled traffic. What I'm seeing installed on our expressways is a thick concrete base that's rolled like asphalt rather than poured, which is then laminated with an asphalt top-layer to seal the expansion joints from freeze/thaw damage.
Titanium dioxide is one of the safest, most bio-inert substances around. Titanium is used for dental and medical implants because it's oxide coating is completely bio-compatible. It's also the primary pigment in every paint your likely to see, it's why white paint is white; if there were any environmental problems with it, they would have shown up decades ago.
Hey watch for two papers, one by Christian Beer et. al, and Miguel Mahecha et. al. both of the Max Plank inst. published online by the journal Science at the Science Express Web site about 2 hours ago.
the actual restriction is
seems like their is a fair amount of wiggle-room for vessels, no restriction on just walking the beach or over-flights. I just don't see it as a big deal, I'd love to get all self-righteous and sling some mud at our illegal-alien president and his administration, but this just isn't it.
Real science is never settled.
It may, with the increased economic burden of carbon taxes on the general populations of the first world, I don't see distribution problems easing. Additionally I'd imagine that the ability or third world countries to provide for themselves will be reduced.
So clue me in
One side note when considering economic viability. Which do you think is better for the health of a community and nation - distributed local power generation interlinked across the nation, or a few key locations and a centralized top-down authority removed from the community administrating it.
One thing not being addressed is infrastructure cost, for example a friend of mine is a power-station operator at a local paper plant, they consume waste ligin to produce power so fuel costs are actually negative because they don't have to pay for waste disposal, yet they are barely able to make a profit at the power-station because the lease costs on the equipment to tie into the commercial power-grid for backup is almost identical as purchasing the power commercially! Our distribution system is in serious need of upgrading adding more smart-grid technology and HVDC capacity is critical, we have to be able to move power from areas with excess to areas in shortage or no matter what we do generation wise it'll just be for local usage. Germany is already saturated with renewable power, some areas actually are charged a negative fee for power usage, while others are surcharged at the same time due to deficiencies in power distribution systems. England has just experiments with a shut-down of wind-turbines to see how it would work. There is no reason to make it if nobody can use it.
More than once, the British invaded during the War of 1812, and the Japanese invaded, captured and shortly held one of our Aleutian Islands.
As near as I can figure out the logic of Apocalyptic Global Warming is;
1. The current rise in computed global average temperatures is unprecedented,
2. CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Earth to reduce the rate IR energy is re-radiated into space,
3. Anthropogenic activity is causing CO2 levels to rise at unprecedented rates;
Therefore Global Warming is predominately anthropogenic, and the current rate of temperature increase will accelerate to catastrophic levels; additionaly computer modeling support the logic.
The opposing point of view is
1. a. the warming measured isn't unprecedented, MWP Roman WP etc,
1.b, the ground stations currently used are both spacialy and temporally sparse and 69% of US stations have errors greater than 2C,
1. c, the statistical methods to global average are suspect and adjustments to the data record to eliminate warming trends other than CO2 have been demonstrated to cause erroneous warming to the exclusion of erroneous cooling.
2. the sensitivity of the warming in regards to CO2 increases is not accurately determined.
3. historically levels of CO2 have been higher
When the validity of all of the premises are disputed then it follows the conclusion is also.
Except the earth, in its state before human civilization, was largely able to compensate for what it produced (catastrophic extinction-level events aside; since I'm guessing we'd like to avoid those today as well). Plants need CO2, an abundance of CO2 meant more plants. Then human civilization began blossoming, which started by clearing forests, which reduced the ability of the earth to compensate for itself. Then industry began blossoming, which introduced more CO2 into the atmosphere than the species of earth had ever evolved to compensate for.
That's certainly the conventional wisdom but,
It's probably a lot more complicated than you were led to believe; quite frankly I'd be surprised if it weren't more complicated than we are able to model.
The heat capacity of the atmosphere and earth's surface is so low, that it varies drastically within a few hours every day. Bodies of water, on the other hand, hold about 100x as much heat per unit volume. I have been debating global warming for a damn long time, and NOBODY has ever had a damn thing to say about the real global heat content (including oceans), just debating bullshit air temperatures, which account for almost nothing compared to ocean temps.
Actually the 3 day average sea surface temperature anomaly for 3 - 15 June 2010 is about -0.75C, 60 day average is about +0.6. Air temps measured by satellite are at +0.44 and are still trending downward.
Maybe a serious wii addict their controllers are bluetooth.
Most people who are pro war would say that the muslims are a threat. Whether they are or not is not a concern to them. In their mind, the muslims ARE a threat. And thus it's fine to kill millions of them.
Wahhabists are the threat, not Muslims in general, the Wahhabism is a threat to Muslims as well as non-Muslims. The real question is will we fight them on our turf or their's?
Your confusing ethane, C2H6, with methane, CH4.
I grew up on flammable drinking water with no fracking fracking involved!