Thanks. I agree with much of what you say. The problem is the editors select articles that interest THEM and new editors seem to be selecting SJW issues. If one wants to do SJW then Huffpost is a good place to do it - but it is inappropriate on Slashdot. With regard to modding - I try to never, ever mod down. Ever. The solution to bad speech is more speech, pointing out the errors - censorship is one of the greatest evils on the planet.
For example, despite your best of intentions what if someone is telling you something unpopular and you consider it trolling, but it is true and is "speaking truth to power"? you might be against the idea, but perhaps you could be persuaded of the facts, if only people can freely say how they understand the situation. This is the only way we can learn the truth (as in reality) despite a sea of disinformation out there. A great example is recently when there was clearly orchestrated molestation of rapes of young women in German, Austria, Norway, Finland, and Sweden by Muslim immigrants (following the depraved example of Mohammed, but we won't get into that). The mainstream media squashed the story, the German government used police against protesters trying to get the truth out, and then the media was forced to release articles but they distorted everything (in short, the media lied). It was only social media where people got to tell the truth about what happened, and the Orwellian way the German government trying to squash and distort all information - calling anyone against the rape "racist". Now on Slashdot a moderator may not know the truth, and thus mods the posts down as "flamebait" or "troll" - yet what is coming out is the truth that is not yet well known. Hence, modding down is extremely problematic.
If someone does abuse their mod points to silence criticism and legitimate debate, I both use my points to counter them and report them to the admins. If you're a moderator and you don't do these things, you're not doing your job.
Yes, you are an excellent example of a moderator. However, the SJWs among us don't believe in Free Speech at all - where Free Speech includes true facts that offend their extremist worldview. They mod down ruthlessly - they can't win debates on facts, so their main weapon is censorship. Thus, when I try and present facts, including uncomfortable truths, I have been modded down ruthlessly and systematically. These people then watch for other posts you make - no matter how innocuous, and continue to mod you down until you have negative karma and are no longer granted mod points, which means you cannot challenge the SJW cultural Marxist Narrative by modding up people pointing out informative and interesting posts that refute their propaganda. I know these SJW types do this because I've had to ask Slashdot admins to examine vicious modding against me and they looked at the pattern and saw the censorship - fortunately they they stripped the crazed SJW censors of the ability to mod ever again. But it is out there.
Free Speech is not about things we agree on. It's not about ponies and rainbows and unicorns and things that make you feel good. Free speech is all about the things we find uncomfortable to talk about. Free Speech is about truths that people don't yet understand. This is why I say that modding down is bad, we should strive to mod up informative and factual posts not matter how we emotionally feel about them. What may be a "troll" to someone who doesn't yet know the truth is a "truth teller" to other people that do. Just as you do, we need to fight censorship - but we also need to fight censorship in *ourselves* if the post contains facts and no personal attacks, no matter what we feel about a subject. Only then can we use Diversity of Opinion (the only diversity that actually matters) to filter many ideas through an evolutionary process and arrive at the best picture of reality despite the massive amounts of disinformation we are subjected to daily.
The question is can you find a current natural process other than CO2 to account for the bulk of the current warming.
Yes. Solar magnetic variability which is correlated with temperature changes, with the correlation affected by a lag explained by oceanic effects. Furthermore, the CO2 concentration itself follows temperature (specifically, Earth's surface properties which are strongly temperature dependent, eg. the biospheric respiration of microbial life is HUGE and very temperature dependent).
But hey, anyone who believes in anything other than CO2 as climate driver is called a "denier" by the warmistas. That makes you a denier.
In the original hockey stick graph the period from 1000 to 1200 was the warmest before the current warming. How is that denying the MWP? The period from about 1400 to 1900 is the coldest shown on the graph. How is that denying the LIA?
Nope. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick has a very flat handle. Very flat, The fact that the blade shoots up is the 'evidence' for CAGW. Without a 'flat handle' t it there is not proof of the 'A' in CAGW.
I'm confused by you mentioning RWP since it was 1000 years before the start of the graph. Which makes me wonder have you ever actually looked at that graph?
Yes, I understand you are very confused. Now you are making a legal argument and not a scientific one, "Your Honor, the RWP which disproves AGW happened before the time period of the Statute of Limitations !". You guys should really listen to yourselves sometime and just think through what you are saying from a 'common sense' point of view (which is apparently not very common amongst warmistas).
The hockey stick graph has absolutely nothing to do with as you put it "C"AGW theory. It is a reconstruction of past temperatures, not a theory of how climate changes. Therefore it has nothing to do with supporting or falsifying current climate theory.
BOOM ! A second time you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the argument that YOUR side makes. The Hockey Stick is *essentialy* to the argument that the cause of the warming after the LIA is principally due to humans. This is why the Hockey Stick *must* have a flat blade or AGW is falsified (which means warmunists MUST deny the LIA and WMP and RWM and even older warming in the Holocene), That is why I post this graph, because it shows that the hypothesis advanced by the warmistas CANNOT be true: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
That is why the warmistas always have to quantity the time period of their argument and prevent you from looking at ALL the data - because once you start collecting data they don't want you to see then you clearly see that not only is CAGW wrong, even AGW is wrong (meaning, humans are not the principal driver of climate change, but yes, we do put a small finger on the scales), and the only reason this zombie theory is still pushed is because the forces behind it are not scientific and using rationalism and the Scientific Method - but they are POLITICAL with a particular agenda that doesn't care about the science (except if it helped them, but observational reality has falsified their hypothesis and made things difficult for the international socialist agenda that is driving this).
You can read about the goals of the UN and IPCC from their own statements, here: http://green-agenda.com/
I'm trying to help you use the Scientific Method and look at ALL the data - because the RSS and UAH satellites are the most important, but their data falsifies CAGW and AGW at this time. Same with the paleo record. But the warmistas are trying to play lawyer sophistry on you, and not do science. I want you to do the science using the Scientific Method.
Fantastic. So if your references are correct then the LIA is caused by NATURAL processes, and the resulting recovery to normal temperatures again is caused by NATURAL processes with some small CO2 effect on top. Great,. you are now officially a 'denier' since you don't think that CO2 drives all temperature variability. Oh, and thanks for confirming using these references that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick really is a fraud, since it denies the existence of the MWP, RWP and LIA. You are a double 'denier' know, according to you own reckoning, right? Of course, you'd realize this already if you actually looked at the observational data - since you'd recognize the Hockey Stick is a fraud straight away and without a Hockey Stick then the CAGW theory is an utter nonsense and is falsified immediately.
Thanks. That;s interesting. But I would argue that it is the immoderate and SJW-biased 'moderation' that is killing Slashdot. I think we need more Free Speech and not more censorship ("moderation") - that way all points of view come across and Darwinian evolution hammers out the best ideas. I believe that my points of view can stand up to scrutiny, and I'm sure many others do to - but it is the censorship and stealthy pushing of Collectivist memes over Individualist ones that is strangling Slashdot and other places. The gamers fought this off with their #GamerGate exposure of the censorious control freaks. I record Slashdotters can do this too - no matter what you believe, this is should be News for Nerds - not propaganda for the Borg Collective.
Yes there were warm episodes scattered around the world during that time but research indicates they weren't well coordinated in time so the global temperature was probably less driven by them.
FALSE. The same thing happened on every continent at the same time period. This is, by definition, a global effect. You just don't want to acknowledge the possibility.
You should really drop the "C" in CAGW. I just marks you out as being on the climate science denier side of things. Whether something is catastrophic or not is a pretty subjective measurement.
But the whole schtick for 'healing the planet' is becaiuse the change is deemed to be catastrophic. If it is not catastrophic than no action is required. The climate has always changed. Oh, and speaking of dropping terms. Even the newspapers now realize that using the term 'denier' not only makes the person using it look completely biased (which you appear to be), and waters down the disgusting acts of real 'deniers' (Holocaust deniers). So, if you want to stop looking like a non-objective extremist, I suggest you drop the 'denier' nonsense. But it seems we agree that what is observed is not catastrophic - which means the whole Alarmist hyperventilation (and UN imposition of socialist 'green taxes') is unnecessary.
Lewis and Curry's estimated ranges for climate sensitivity isn't that far off from the IPCC's estimates.
Not so. They are significantly different. The claim has been that warming of up to 8 K is possible and 4 K is *extrenely likely* hence the West must be de-industrialized - which means that tens of millions of poor people in the Third World will lack medicines and food as energy becomes much more expensive and scares. There is a huge difference between the IPCC computer-generated guesses and the observational reality, and at the moment the Alarmists in their comfy First World cities are condemning the poor of the Third World to energy poverty where they can never climb out of - as well as dying of preventable diseases where treatments are unavailable due to much higher manufacturing and transportation costs. Already thousands of old people are dying in Britain and Germany as a result of 'green energy' which is unreliable and triples energy costs. Did you not know that the alarmist scam is already killing people?
Also while 150 years of observations may be long enough to determine the Transient Climate Response I'm not sure that is long enough to determine the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity because among other things it doesn't take into full account albedo changes from melting ice.
Melting ice? did you not look at the DATA I provided? The Arctic is putting on ice. So is the Antarctic. Total ice cover is at record levels. Polar bear numbers are up. You have not looked at the actual observational data at all, have you? Here is a hint: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old...
I don't consider Nic Lewis and Judith Curry to particularly be unbiased sources so I guess we're even on that score.
Which data of their do you refute and why?
Regarding changing my mind about CAGW as I said I don't accept the "C" in it
If there is no 'C' then what is the problem? Furthermore, what is the proper temperature that the Earth should be at? you guys never answer that question. You are the ultimate in conservatives who always want to wind the clock back to the conditions (and society) of the 1970s. Think about it, "What temperature and CO2 should the Earth be at?". We do know that plants evolved at around 2000 ppmV CO2, and below 150 ppmV of CO2 all plant life dies (which means all life dies) - we have been perilously close to that limit in the recent past and fortunately are moving away from real climate catastrophe.
I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton got a treaty out of the North Koreans that they wouldn't make nukes. In return the US gave lots of aid to prop up the regime. With that 'success' Obama has just done the same with the Iranian theocracy, even using the same negotiators to make sure the best deal was hammered out. Totalitarian dictators don't tell fibs, right? (I was talking about Iran, not about the US regime).
I miss the old Slashdot. This Socialist Justice editorial selection seems to be betting in the way of interesting tech subjects. Perhaps Slashdot needs a #GamerGate to bring stuff back to "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" again ?
Thanks. I'm well aware of Richard Muller's consultancy business. You know that Muller runs a business, right? and Berkley Earth is his brochure site, right? you were aware of this?
Berkley Earth does use land and ocean data. Land data is problematic, for reason I won't go into here. Do you know why they don't choose to use the RSS and UAH satellite data that has vastly better coverage and has *much* smaller adjustments. Especially since the satellite data sets measure the troposphere that the CAGW theory says is most sensitive to their predicted effects. At the moment, the satellite data shows natural variability for the better part of the last two decades. Which means the *observed* ECS and TCS values are lower than the lower limit of the IPCC AR5. In short, the CAGW hypothesis cannot be sustained based on the observation satellite data (which has VASTLY better coverage than the surface and ocean data). So could you please explain this?
Also it is now known that the MWP was not a global phenomenon but was mostly limited to the the North Atlantic and Europe.
I have heard this asserted, however stalactite formation in the Southern Hemisphere (where I live) was affected. I suggest you look at the stalactite data (which comes from numerous sites around the globe).
Current science indicates the Little Ice Age was driven largely by volcanic activity with a small added impetus from the Maunder minimum.
Really? for a hundred years? citation required.
Solar activity has been low for a decade now yet temperatures continue to rise. What will be your response if as some predict solar activity remains low into the 2030s yet temperatures continue to rise?
I fully expect temperatures to continue to rise for a little bit, since the oceans have stored so much energy from previous heating. Plus, the CO2 level is going up. Everyone understands this. What it will not appear to be, is *catastrophic*. The question really is - if temperatures continue to show natural variability and a rise consistent with CO2 concentration alone (no 'enhanced' greenhouse effect), which is what has been seen in the satellite data for nearly two decades now, what will YOUR response be? or is your CAGW hypothesis non-falsifiable? (and thus, not actually a scientific theory).
I don't know where you got your 1.2 K ECS from (I suppose from Lewis & Curry) but the latest IPCC report give a range of 1.5-4.5 K for ECS.
Yes, the Lewis and Curry analysis is two years AFTER the IPCC. Please note also that Lewis and Curry use observational reality. The IPCC use GCM models - which don't appear to match the observational reality. So the choice is before you, do you go with philosophy and chose an axiomatic approach that ignores data you don't like; or do you do science and change your hypothesis based on the data? since I have a PhD in physics I was FORCED to change my hypothesis from a CAGW believer into someone who now considers ALL the data.
Gavin Schmidt has an interesting commentary on Reconiciling estimates of climate sensitivity [realclimate.org] over at RealClimate talking about the recent Kate Marvel paper in which he had a part.
Sorry, Gavin Schmidt is not considered an unbiased source, and neither is realclimate (which is a mouthpiece for Gavin). How about you give some data that hasn't passed through NOAA or NASA? I'd love more data not from these sources - but all the data I see that aren't from them pretty much agree - and show the CAGW hypothesis cannot be sustained based on the data.
The 1990 IPCC report clearly showed the Medieval Warm Period - the presence of a WMP (and the Roman Warm Period, Little Ice Age etc all invalidate the Hickey Sticl). You need to debunk that IPCC report. Please also notice that ever since the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick and the Glever Report the Hockey stick has been removed from the *latest* IPCC report. You also need to explain the longer-term paleo record that shows massive natural variability, mostly correlated with solar activity. Warming for the last 200 years seems to be a consequence of solar activity increasing since the Maunder minimum (which produced the famous, Little Ice Age, which have numerous contemporary accounts about, and we are recovering from).
While you are getting to work explaining why the Vikings could farm in Greenland (and their dead are buried in once-soft soil that is now permafrost, because it is colder today), perhaps you'd like to explain the difference between the observed ECS of 1.2 K and the IPCC computer prediction of 4 to 8 K. See Lewis & Curry 2015 for the meta-study of observed values.
You are starting to get the idea. But when you look at the most probable values for the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) that values coming out of the IPCC computer models are 4 to 8 K. That means, when CO2 is doubled from the pre-Industrial level of around 270 ppmV to 540 ppmV sometime next century then the computer models predict a rise of 4 to 8 K. Doubling CO2 itself produces a rise of about 1.2 K by itself, and the rest of the predicted rise is basically due to estimated water vapor effects. If this was the case then the alarmists would be correct. However, this is not the case.
Studies based on observation data show that the IPCC's modeled ECS of 4 K is way too high. The most probable value is around 1.1 to 1.2 K (see Lewis & Curry 2015). That means that water vapor does not provide a 'positive feedback' to CO2, but actually is either neutral or very slightly negative. This is the observed reality. The problem lies with the computer 'global circulation' models which project way to much warming - mostly because they are unable to model the complex effects of water vapor, such as convection.
The Climategate emails revealed that the modelers realized their models could not match observed reality, and could not explain the difference and people like Ken Trenberth considered this a "travesty". In short, a significant number of the climate change alarmists understand that their claims are not true, but they must maintain their position in order to keep the $29 Billion per year in funding going (otherwise they'll go back to being a poorly funded and ignored sector of science) and to save face. This is why their attacks on people using the Scientific Method to match observations to the predictions are so vicious. In addition, the politicians at the UN have a different agenda - which you can read for yourself from their statements at http://green-agenda.com/
Should humans look after their environment? of course ! but lying about the failed CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) undermines Science and real environmentalism - as well as allowing authoritarians to regulate every aspect of your life through control of 'carbon'.
Like I say, please look at the actual paleo data. Please look at the graphs I already supplied. Here's another one, which shows forest fires in the US which have declined massively since the 'dustbowl' of the 1940s. The forest fires agree with the UAH and RSS satellites and weather balloons and the data from well-sited surface stations. The only data that shows any significant warming is the non-well sited stations subject to Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect as well as unexplained adjustments that massively cool the past and warm the present (which produces an apparent warming trend that other data do not show - get rid of these unexplained adjustments and the weather looks perfectly normal with normal variability).
Yes. Solar magnetic activity is correlated with climate. The mechanism has only recently been understood with the work of astrophysicist Dr Nir Shaviv (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv), Svensmark, et al.
Please also remember that the oceans moderate the heat transfer between solar insolation and the atmosphere, The ocean also plays a large part in natural CO2 emission and absorption (CO2 concentration follows temperature to an extent far greater than the other way around), as well as the biosphere (which is has temperature-dependent emission that dwarfs human sources by an order of magnitude).
Humans contribute to global warming through our CO2 emissions, but our contribution appears to be minor compared to natural effects. Hence, the de-industrialization of the First World and massive wealth redistribution called for by the United Nations (who stands to profit handsomely from it - as well as obtaining a funding source independent of oversight from the USA) is not based on observational science at this time. The CAGW hypothesis had some merit in the 1990s and even 2000's, but should be considered falsified at this time and must be reformulated (which is why officials have moved from the disproven 'Global Warming' into the meaningless 'Climate Change' meme - and hoped you didn't notice).
A Hockey Stick believer? wow! I didn't know you still existed. Did you not notice the IPCC remove the Hockey Stick from AR 5 ever since Steve McIntyre and others discredited the analysis. But even if we pretend the Hockey Stick is true, you still need to explain the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period (ya know, when the Vikings farmed Greenland, and buried their people in places that are now colder with 'permafrost'), and the Little Ice Age that is well-attested as correlated with solar magnetic activity levels (observed through sunspots).
I can't believe that any Slashdotters are so behind the times they don't know the Hockey Stick has been *comprehensively* debunked (not least because 70% of its record is based on a single bristlecone pine) and there is a HUGE amount of observational data (eg. stalectite records around the globe) that show Mann's analysis was at best completely incompetent and more likely deliberately fraudulent (based on his re-created methodology).
You can conduct ad hominems against me personally if you wish - but it just shows you don't have the DATA to prove your case. In fact, because the CAGW crew cannot refute the actual paleo data that shows natural climatic variability (and there is a LOT - when you start looking) then the only thing you can do is conduct ad hominems and talk about "consensus" rather than OBSERVED REALITY.
Isn't natural warming what we'd expect to see as solar magnetic activity picks up and we climb out of the Little Ice Age ? There is a link between the solar heliosphere (controlled by solar magnetic activity), mediated by cosmic rays, and terrestrial cloud formation - that is, terrestrial climate is correlated with solar magnetic activity and this is well established (although denied by Michael Mann's now debunked 'Hockey Stick').
Unfortunately the global temperature range is of the order of 100 K from poles to equator, and the uncertainty in the measurement data is at least +/- 0.2 K, so increases of fractions of a degree are not particularly significant. Here is a paper discussing the same http://multi-science.atypon.co... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
There is Global Warming for sure. We would expect warming after the Sun increased magnetic activity after the end of the Little Ice Age. Some component of that warming is due to human-emitted CO2. Whether the dominant effect is natural or human is still being debated (particularly since CO2 effects are weak and the IPCC's models that the CO2-induced water vapor effects would increase the temperature further appear to be falsified by experiment). To de-industrialize and impose punitive 'carbon taxes' at this stage does not look like it can be supported by the data. The difference between surface and satellite observations has not yet been resolved satisfactorily (the 'science is not settled'). If you think the science is settled please refer to the data I have provided in your response (you need to explain it). Thanks.
Ubiquity and Longevity are important. It takes a while to create Big software projects, so fad du-jour languages have an Achilles Heel here. Java is pretty much ubiquitous and is very long-lived (so far).
When you have large code bases and lots of people trained in a technology then you tend to use it even more. WORA (Write Once Run Everywhere) is a killer feature, and Java system written on architectures that are now less used (i386, Irix, AIX, Solaris, etc) work pretty much painlessly on new hardware. Java scales from the massive to the miniature and thanks to the talented people at Sun, Oracle and OpenJDK the performance of Java is pretty phenomenal.
I personally am writing a jet combat flight simulator (which I'm mostly keeping under the radar, for now) in Java. I never have to worry about multi-threaded CPU performance. Seriously, never. I only spend time worrying about the bottlenecks in the GPU. Java and OpenGL (via JoGL) are a potent combination. I will never go back to C++ if I can help it - Java libraries and tooling (I love IntelliJ IDEA and the JDK's VisualVM) are so much better. Long live Java !
Ah, Slashdot has been infected with the "Social Justice for Nerds". Enough propaganda from these SJW neo-Marxists. Slashdot is no longer worth reading. #GamerGate #CulturalLibertarianism
Huh? Look at the RSS and UAH satellite data ! I bet you haven't. Hence, you have zero clue as to what I'm talking about. Also, please look at the paleo record for the last 10000 years to get some perspective.
Actually, it is the CAGW that is not backed by reality. The ECS and TCS have most probable values around 1.2 according to the latest review of observational measurements (eg. Lewis & Curry 2015). Do you understand the significance of this for CAGW ? CAGW is a DEAD hypothesis. The Scientific Method says so.
"Because I haven't looked at it. "
Epic Fail. You know, what is striking is how strong the opinions of CAGW believers are, without understanding anything about the observed reality/observations. This is a really, really, really bad habit that otherwise smart people fall into.
The Scientific Method requires you to understand your own hypothesis, as well as any competing hypothesis - and the evidence for an against each one. But you don't follow the Scientific Method and seem quote proud of following dogma blindly. They do say Global Warming Alarmism acts like a religious cult, and your admission puts you squarely in this camp
Since the science shows what I was thinking would happen, I don't examine the details.
Your process is ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. You are acting contrary to the Scientific Method and yet you claim to know what the 'science shows' without ever looking at the paleo record or satellite data sets, nor understanding the limitations of the surface data or adjustments made to it. You are not practicing science at all - but are a crystal clear demonstration of Confirmation Bias and how smart people can be anti-scientific while thinking they are doing science.
Please note, I have a PhD in Physics (specifically Astrophysics) so if you want to debate whether I'm qualified to discuss the Scientific Method then we can go down that track. But it is clear that not only are is your approach deliberately and apparently proudly anti-scientific, but you don't even seem to know the Scientific Method nor much of the observational data. Please get out of your bad and anti-scientific habit immediately.
"all you've done is showcase your own ignorance"
Huh? I suggest looking at OBSERVATIONAL REALITY as shown by the UAH and RSS satellites, and the well-sited surface stations. As well as check out the quotes of the architects of the wealth-redistribution scheme. It appears you are ignorant of the satellite data, and closed minded to observational reality. I urge you to drop the dogmatism and employ The Scientific Method - where observation is king.
"Feel the Bern!"
ROFL !!!!! you say that I'm "showcasing my own ignorance" when you are so economically illiterate you are advocating an old white fossil whose failed ideas come out of the 1970s and were comprehensively destroyed with the collapse of the unsustainable socialist model (which is also dragging Europe down at the moment, just collapsing more slowly). Well, if there is a prize for "showcasing ignorance" then you Statist Collectivists really would get first place. LOL !!! it is hard to believe that such ignorance of fundamental economics still exists. "WEALTH IS CREATED" - once you understand this then you see socialism is not only unworkable it is also deeply immoral. Voluntary (and thus, moral) charity is more efficient than Involuntary (and thus, immoral) socialism.
"extreme right wing paranoia, not science."
But I urge you to look at the OBSERVATIONAL DATA, and I provide links to quotes directly from sources. It seems that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Alamists such as yourself are driven by extreme Left wing Collectivist indoctrination that must deny observational reality (UAH and RSS satellite data, and well-sited surface stations) as well as the quotes from the architects of the wealth-redistribution scam. What are you guys going to do when you find the observational evidence shows the Earth is round ?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I agree with much of what you say. The problem is the editors select articles that interest THEM and new editors seem to be selecting SJW issues. If one wants to do SJW then Huffpost is a good place to do it - but it is inappropriate on Slashdot. With regard to modding - I try to never, ever mod down. Ever. The solution to bad speech is more speech, pointing out the errors - censorship is one of the greatest evils on the planet.
For example, despite your best of intentions what if someone is telling you something unpopular and you consider it trolling, but it is true and is "speaking truth to power"? you might be against the idea, but perhaps you could be persuaded of the facts, if only people can freely say how they understand the situation. This is the only way we can learn the truth (as in reality) despite a sea of disinformation out there. A great example is recently when there was clearly orchestrated molestation of rapes of young women in German, Austria, Norway, Finland, and Sweden by Muslim immigrants (following the depraved example of Mohammed, but we won't get into that). The mainstream media squashed the story, the German government used police against protesters trying to get the truth out, and then the media was forced to release articles but they distorted everything (in short, the media lied). It was only social media where people got to tell the truth about what happened, and the Orwellian way the German government trying to squash and distort all information - calling anyone against the rape "racist". Now on Slashdot a moderator may not know the truth, and thus mods the posts down as "flamebait" or "troll" - yet what is coming out is the truth that is not yet well known. Hence, modding down is extremely problematic.
If someone does abuse their mod points to silence criticism and legitimate debate, I both use my points to counter them and report them to the admins. If you're a moderator and you don't do these things, you're not doing your job.
Yes, you are an excellent example of a moderator. However, the SJWs among us don't believe in Free Speech at all - where Free Speech includes true facts that offend their extremist worldview. They mod down ruthlessly - they can't win debates on facts, so their main weapon is censorship. Thus, when I try and present facts, including uncomfortable truths, I have been modded down ruthlessly and systematically. These people then watch for other posts you make - no matter how innocuous, and continue to mod you down until you have negative karma and are no longer granted mod points, which means you cannot challenge the SJW cultural Marxist Narrative by modding up people pointing out informative and interesting posts that refute their propaganda. I know these SJW types do this because I've had to ask Slashdot admins to examine vicious modding against me and they looked at the pattern and saw the censorship - fortunately they they stripped the crazed SJW censors of the ability to mod ever again. But it is out there.
Free Speech is not about things we agree on. It's not about ponies and rainbows and unicorns and things that make you feel good. Free speech is all about the things we find uncomfortable to talk about. Free Speech is about truths that people don't yet understand. This is why I say that modding down is bad, we should strive to mod up informative and factual posts not matter how we emotionally feel about them. What may be a "troll" to someone who doesn't yet know the truth is a "truth teller" to other people that do. Just as you do, we need to fight censorship - but we also need to fight censorship in *ourselves* if the post contains facts and no personal attacks, no matter what we feel about a subject. Only then can we use Diversity of Opinion (the only diversity that actually matters) to filter many ideas through an evolutionary process and arrive at the best picture of reality despite the massive amounts of disinformation we are subjected to daily.
The question is can you find a current natural process other than CO2 to account for the bulk of the current warming.
Yes. Solar magnetic variability which is correlated with temperature changes, with the correlation affected by a lag explained by oceanic effects. Furthermore, the CO2 concentration itself follows temperature (specifically, Earth's surface properties which are strongly temperature dependent, eg. the biospheric respiration of microbial life is HUGE and very temperature dependent).
But hey, anyone who believes in anything other than CO2 as climate driver is called a "denier" by the warmistas. That makes you a denier.
In the original hockey stick graph the period from 1000 to 1200 was the warmest before the current warming. How is that denying the MWP? The period from about 1400 to 1900 is the coldest shown on the graph. How is that denying the LIA?
Nope. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick has a very flat handle. Very flat, The fact that the blade shoots up is the 'evidence' for CAGW. Without a 'flat handle' t it there is not proof of the 'A' in CAGW.
I'm confused by you mentioning RWP since it was 1000 years before the start of the graph. Which makes me wonder have you ever actually looked at that graph?
Yes, I understand you are very confused. Now you are making a legal argument and not a scientific one, "Your Honor, the RWP which disproves AGW happened before the time period of the Statute of Limitations !". You guys should really listen to yourselves sometime and just think through what you are saying from a 'common sense' point of view (which is apparently not very common amongst warmistas).
The hockey stick graph has absolutely nothing to do with as you put it "C"AGW theory. It is a reconstruction of past temperatures, not a theory of how climate changes. Therefore it has nothing to do with supporting or falsifying current climate theory.
BOOM ! A second time you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the argument that YOUR side makes. The Hockey Stick is *essentialy* to the argument that the cause of the warming after the LIA is principally due to humans. This is why the Hockey Stick *must* have a flat blade or AGW is falsified (which means warmunists MUST deny the LIA and WMP and RWM and even older warming in the Holocene), That is why I post this graph, because it shows that the hypothesis advanced by the warmistas CANNOT be true:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
That is why the warmistas always have to quantity the time period of their argument and prevent you from looking at ALL the data - because once you start collecting data they don't want you to see then you clearly see that not only is CAGW wrong, even AGW is wrong (meaning, humans are not the principal driver of climate change, but yes, we do put a small finger on the scales), and the only reason this zombie theory is still pushed is because the forces behind it are not scientific and using rationalism and the Scientific Method - but they are POLITICAL with a particular agenda that doesn't care about the science (except if it helped them, but observational reality has falsified their hypothesis and made things difficult for the international socialist agenda that is driving this).
You can read about the goals of the UN and IPCC from their own statements, here:
http://green-agenda.com/
I'm trying to help you use the Scientific Method and look at ALL the data - because the RSS and UAH satellites are the most important, but their data falsifies CAGW and AGW at this time. Same with the paleo record. But the warmistas are trying to play lawyer sophistry on you, and not do science. I want you to do the science using the Scientific Method.
Fantastic. So if your references are correct then the LIA is caused by NATURAL processes, and the resulting recovery to normal temperatures again is caused by NATURAL processes with some small CO2 effect on top. Great,. you are now officially a 'denier' since you don't think that CO2 drives all temperature variability. Oh, and thanks for confirming using these references that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick really is a fraud, since it denies the existence of the MWP, RWP and LIA. You are a double 'denier' know, according to you own reckoning, right? Of course, you'd realize this already if you actually looked at the observational data - since you'd recognize the Hockey Stick is a fraud straight away and without a Hockey Stick then the CAGW theory is an utter nonsense and is falsified immediately.
Thanks. That;s interesting. But I would argue that it is the immoderate and SJW-biased 'moderation' that is killing Slashdot. I think we need more Free Speech and not more censorship ("moderation") - that way all points of view come across and Darwinian evolution hammers out the best ideas. I believe that my points of view can stand up to scrutiny, and I'm sure many others do to - but it is the censorship and stealthy pushing of Collectivist memes over Individualist ones that is strangling Slashdot and other places. The gamers fought this off with their #GamerGate exposure of the censorious control freaks. I record Slashdotters can do this too - no matter what you believe, this is should be News for Nerds - not propaganda for the Borg Collective.
Yes there were warm episodes scattered around the world during that time but research indicates they weren't well coordinated in time so the global temperature was probably less driven by them.
FALSE. The same thing happened on every continent at the same time period. This is, by definition, a global effect. You just don't want to acknowledge the possibility.
You should really drop the "C" in CAGW. I just marks you out as being on the climate science denier side of things. Whether something is catastrophic or not is a pretty subjective measurement.
But the whole schtick for 'healing the planet' is becaiuse the change is deemed to be catastrophic. If it is not catastrophic than no action is required. The climate has always changed. Oh, and speaking of dropping terms. Even the newspapers now realize that using the term 'denier' not only makes the person using it look completely biased (which you appear to be), and waters down the disgusting acts of real 'deniers' (Holocaust deniers). So, if you want to stop looking like a non-objective extremist, I suggest you drop the 'denier' nonsense. But it seems we agree that what is observed is not catastrophic - which means the whole Alarmist hyperventilation (and UN imposition of socialist 'green taxes') is unnecessary.
Lewis and Curry's estimated ranges for climate sensitivity isn't that far off from the IPCC's estimates.
Not so. They are significantly different. The claim has been that warming of up to 8 K is possible and 4 K is *extrenely likely* hence the West must be de-industrialized - which means that tens of millions of poor people in the Third World will lack medicines and food as energy becomes much more expensive and scares. There is a huge difference between the IPCC computer-generated guesses and the observational reality, and at the moment the Alarmists in their comfy First World cities are condemning the poor of the Third World to energy poverty where they can never climb out of - as well as dying of preventable diseases where treatments are unavailable due to much higher manufacturing and transportation costs. Already thousands of old people are dying in Britain and Germany as a result of 'green energy' which is unreliable and triples energy costs. Did you not know that the alarmist scam is already killing people?
Also while 150 years of observations may be long enough to determine the Transient Climate Response I'm not sure that is long enough to determine the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity because among other things it doesn't take into full account albedo changes from melting ice.
Melting ice? did you not look at the DATA I provided? The Arctic is putting on ice. So is the Antarctic. Total ice cover is at record levels. Polar bear numbers are up. You have not looked at the actual observational data at all, have you? Here is a hint:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old...
I don't consider Nic Lewis and Judith Curry to particularly be unbiased sources so I guess we're even on that score.
Which data of their do you refute and why?
Regarding changing my mind about CAGW as I said I don't accept the "C" in it
If there is no 'C' then what is the problem? Furthermore, what is the proper temperature that the Earth should be at? you guys never answer that question. You are the ultimate in conservatives who always want to wind the clock back to the conditions (and society) of the 1970s. Think about it, "What temperature and CO2 should the Earth be at?". We do know that plants evolved at around 2000 ppmV CO2, and below 150 ppmV of CO2 all plant life dies (which means all life dies) - we have been perilously close to that limit in the recent past and fortunately are moving away from real climate catastrophe.
Whether it becomes cat
I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton got a treaty out of the North Koreans that they wouldn't make nukes. In return the US gave lots of aid to prop up the regime. With that 'success' Obama has just done the same with the Iranian theocracy, even using the same negotiators to make sure the best deal was hammered out. Totalitarian dictators don't tell fibs, right? (I was talking about Iran, not about the US regime).
I miss the old Slashdot. This Socialist Justice editorial selection seems to be betting in the way of interesting tech subjects. Perhaps Slashdot needs a #GamerGate to bring stuff back to "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" again ?
Thanks. I'm well aware of Richard Muller's consultancy business. You know that Muller runs a business, right? and Berkley Earth is his brochure site, right? you were aware of this?
Berkley Earth does use land and ocean data. Land data is problematic, for reason I won't go into here. Do you know why they don't choose to use the RSS and UAH satellite data that has vastly better coverage and has *much* smaller adjustments. Especially since the satellite data sets measure the troposphere that the CAGW theory says is most sensitive to their predicted effects. At the moment, the satellite data shows natural variability for the better part of the last two decades. Which means the *observed* ECS and TCS values are lower than the lower limit of the IPCC AR5. In short, the CAGW hypothesis cannot be sustained based on the observation satellite data (which has VASTLY better coverage than the surface and ocean data). So could you please explain this?
Thanks for commenting riverrat1.
Also it is now known that the MWP was not a global phenomenon but was mostly limited to the the North Atlantic and Europe.
I have heard this asserted, however stalactite formation in the Southern Hemisphere (where I live) was affected. I suggest you look at the stalactite data (which comes from numerous sites around the globe).
Current science indicates the Little Ice Age was driven largely by volcanic activity with a small added impetus from the Maunder minimum.
Really? for a hundred years? citation required.
Solar activity has been low for a decade now yet temperatures continue to rise. What will be your response if as some predict solar activity remains low into the 2030s yet temperatures continue to rise?
I fully expect temperatures to continue to rise for a little bit, since the oceans have stored so much energy from previous heating. Plus, the CO2 level is going up. Everyone understands this. What it will not appear to be, is *catastrophic*. The question really is - if temperatures continue to show natural variability and a rise consistent with CO2 concentration alone (no 'enhanced' greenhouse effect), which is what has been seen in the satellite data for nearly two decades now, what will YOUR response be? or is your CAGW hypothesis non-falsifiable? (and thus, not actually a scientific theory).
I don't know where you got your 1.2 K ECS from (I suppose from Lewis & Curry) but the latest IPCC report give a range of 1.5-4.5 K for ECS.
Yes, the Lewis and Curry analysis is two years AFTER the IPCC. Please note also that Lewis and Curry use observational reality. The IPCC use GCM models - which don't appear to match the observational reality. So the choice is before you, do you go with philosophy and chose an axiomatic approach that ignores data you don't like; or do you do science and change your hypothesis based on the data? since I have a PhD in physics I was FORCED to change my hypothesis from a CAGW believer into someone who now considers ALL the data.
Gavin Schmidt has an interesting commentary on Reconiciling estimates of climate sensitivity [realclimate.org] over at RealClimate talking about the recent Kate Marvel paper in which he had a part.
Sorry, Gavin Schmidt is not considered an unbiased source, and neither is realclimate (which is a mouthpiece for Gavin). How about you give some data that hasn't passed through NOAA or NASA? I'd love more data not from these sources - but all the data I see that aren't from them pretty much agree - and show the CAGW hypothesis cannot be sustained based on the data.
The 1990 IPCC report clearly showed the Medieval Warm Period - the presence of a WMP (and the Roman Warm Period, Little Ice Age etc all invalidate the Hickey Sticl). You need to debunk that IPCC report. Please also notice that ever since the analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick and the Glever Report the Hockey stick has been removed from the *latest* IPCC report. You also need to explain the longer-term paleo record that shows massive natural variability, mostly correlated with solar activity. Warming for the last 200 years seems to be a consequence of solar activity increasing since the Maunder minimum (which produced the famous, Little Ice Age, which have numerous contemporary accounts about, and we are recovering from).
While you are getting to work explaining why the Vikings could farm in Greenland (and their dead are buried in once-soft soil that is now permafrost, because it is colder today), perhaps you'd like to explain the difference between the observed ECS of 1.2 K and the IPCC computer prediction of 4 to 8 K. See Lewis & Curry 2015 for the meta-study of observed values.
Oops, sorry. I forgot to add the forest fire data. Here it is :)
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/...
You are starting to get the idea. But when you look at the most probable values for the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) that values coming out of the IPCC computer models are 4 to 8 K. That means, when CO2 is doubled from the pre-Industrial level of around 270 ppmV to 540 ppmV sometime next century then the computer models predict a rise of 4 to 8 K. Doubling CO2 itself produces a rise of about 1.2 K by itself, and the rest of the predicted rise is basically due to estimated water vapor effects. If this was the case then the alarmists would be correct. However, this is not the case.
Studies based on observation data show that the IPCC's modeled ECS of 4 K is way too high. The most probable value is around 1.1 to 1.2 K (see Lewis & Curry 2015). That means that water vapor does not provide a 'positive feedback' to CO2, but actually is either neutral or very slightly negative. This is the observed reality. The problem lies with the computer 'global circulation' models which project way to much warming - mostly because they are unable to model the complex effects of water vapor, such as convection.
The Climategate emails revealed that the modelers realized their models could not match observed reality, and could not explain the difference and people like Ken Trenberth considered this a "travesty". In short, a significant number of the climate change alarmists understand that their claims are not true, but they must maintain their position in order to keep the $29 Billion per year in funding going (otherwise they'll go back to being a poorly funded and ignored sector of science) and to save face. This is why their attacks on people using the Scientific Method to match observations to the predictions are so vicious. In addition, the politicians at the UN have a different agenda - which you can read for yourself from their statements at http://green-agenda.com/
Should humans look after their environment? of course ! but lying about the failed CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) undermines Science and real environmentalism - as well as allowing authoritarians to regulate every aspect of your life through control of 'carbon'.
Like I say, please look at the actual paleo data. Please look at the graphs I already supplied. Here's another one, which shows forest fires in the US which have declined massively since the 'dustbowl' of the 1940s. The forest fires agree with the UAH and RSS satellites and weather balloons and the data from well-sited surface stations. The only data that shows any significant warming is the non-well sited stations subject to Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect as well as unexplained adjustments that massively cool the past and warm the present (which produces an apparent warming trend that other data do not show - get rid of these unexplained adjustments and the weather looks perfectly normal with normal variability).
Yes. Solar magnetic activity is correlated with climate. The mechanism has only recently been understood with the work of astrophysicist Dr Nir Shaviv (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv), Svensmark, et al.
Please also remember that the oceans moderate the heat transfer between solar insolation and the atmosphere, The ocean also plays a large part in natural CO2 emission and absorption (CO2 concentration follows temperature to an extent far greater than the other way around), as well as the biosphere (which is has temperature-dependent emission that dwarfs human sources by an order of magnitude).
Humans contribute to global warming through our CO2 emissions, but our contribution appears to be minor compared to natural effects. Hence, the de-industrialization of the First World and massive wealth redistribution called for by the United Nations (who stands to profit handsomely from it - as well as obtaining a funding source independent of oversight from the USA) is not based on observational science at this time. The CAGW hypothesis had some merit in the 1990s and even 2000's, but should be considered falsified at this time and must be reformulated (which is why officials have moved from the disproven 'Global Warming' into the meaningless 'Climate Change' meme - and hoped you didn't notice).
A Hockey Stick believer? wow! I didn't know you still existed. Did you not notice the IPCC remove the Hockey Stick from AR 5 ever since Steve McIntyre and others discredited the analysis. But even if we pretend the Hockey Stick is true, you still need to explain the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period (ya know, when the Vikings farmed Greenland, and buried their people in places that are now colder with 'permafrost'), and the Little Ice Age that is well-attested as correlated with solar magnetic activity levels (observed through sunspots).
I can't believe that any Slashdotters are so behind the times they don't know the Hockey Stick has been *comprehensively* debunked (not least because 70% of its record is based on a single bristlecone pine) and there is a HUGE amount of observational data (eg. stalectite records around the globe) that show Mann's analysis was at best completely incompetent and more likely deliberately fraudulent (based on his re-created methodology).
You can conduct ad hominems against me personally if you wish - but it just shows you don't have the DATA to prove your case. In fact, because the CAGW crew cannot refute the actual paleo data that shows natural climatic variability (and there is a LOT - when you start looking) then the only thing you can do is conduct ad hominems and talk about "consensus" rather than OBSERVED REALITY.
So bring data next time.
Thank you for the short-term data. Have you seen the long term data yet?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
Isn't natural warming what we'd expect to see as solar magnetic activity picks up and we climb out of the Little Ice Age ? There is a link between the solar heliosphere (controlled by solar magnetic activity), mediated by cosmic rays, and terrestrial cloud formation - that is, terrestrial climate is correlated with solar magnetic activity and this is well established (although denied by Michael Mann's now debunked 'Hockey Stick').
Opps, first and most important link broken. My apologies. Here is the fixed link:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
Slashdotters love data, right?
Here is the 10000 year view of the situation:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...
Here's the data from the Arctic:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old...
Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Here's the RSS satellite trend since the big El Nino of 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Here is a correlation between CO2 and various surface and satellite data-sets: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Unfortunately the global temperature range is of the order of 100 K from poles to equator, and the uncertainty in the measurement data is at least +/- 0.2 K, so increases of fractions of a degree are not particularly significant. Here is a paper discussing the same
http://multi-science.atypon.co...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
There is Global Warming for sure. We would expect warming after the Sun increased magnetic activity after the end of the Little Ice Age. Some component of that warming is due to human-emitted CO2. Whether the dominant effect is natural or human is still being debated (particularly since CO2 effects are weak and the IPCC's models that the CO2-induced water vapor effects would increase the temperature further appear to be falsified by experiment). To de-industrialize and impose punitive 'carbon taxes' at this stage does not look like it can be supported by the data. The difference between surface and satellite observations has not yet been resolved satisfactorily (the 'science is not settled'). If you think the science is settled please refer to the data I have provided in your response (you need to explain it). Thanks.
Ubiquity and Longevity are important. It takes a while to create Big software projects, so fad du-jour languages have an Achilles Heel here. Java is pretty much ubiquitous and is very long-lived (so far).
When you have large code bases and lots of people trained in a technology then you tend to use it even more. WORA (Write Once Run Everywhere) is a killer feature, and Java system written on architectures that are now less used (i386, Irix, AIX, Solaris, etc) work pretty much painlessly on new hardware. Java scales from the massive to the miniature and thanks to the talented people at Sun, Oracle and OpenJDK the performance of Java is pretty phenomenal.
I personally am writing a jet combat flight simulator (which I'm mostly keeping under the radar, for now) in Java. I never have to worry about multi-threaded CPU performance. Seriously, never. I only spend time worrying about the bottlenecks in the GPU. Java and OpenGL (via JoGL) are a potent combination. I will never go back to C++ if I can help it - Java libraries and tooling (I love IntelliJ IDEA and the JDK's VisualVM) are so much better. Long live Java !
Ah, Slashdot has been infected with the "Social Justice for Nerds". Enough propaganda from these SJW neo-Marxists. Slashdot is no longer worth reading. #GamerGate #CulturalLibertarianism
Huh? Look at the RSS and UAH satellite data ! I bet you haven't. Hence, you have zero clue as to what I'm talking about. Also, please look at the paleo record for the last 10000 years to get some perspective.
Actually, it is the CAGW that is not backed by reality. The ECS and TCS have most probable values around 1.2 according to the latest review of observational measurements (eg. Lewis & Curry 2015). Do you understand the significance of this for CAGW ? CAGW is a DEAD hypothesis. The Scientific Method says so.
"Because I haven't looked at it. "
Epic Fail. You know, what is striking is how strong the opinions of CAGW believers are, without understanding anything about the observed reality/observations. This is a really, really, really bad habit that otherwise smart people fall into.
The Scientific Method requires you to understand your own hypothesis, as well as any competing hypothesis - and the evidence for an against each one. But you don't follow the Scientific Method and seem quote proud of following dogma blindly. They do say Global Warming Alarmism acts like a religious cult, and your admission puts you squarely in this camp
Since the science shows what I was thinking would happen, I don't examine the details.
Your process is ANTI-SCIENTIFIC. You are acting contrary to the Scientific Method and yet you claim to know what the 'science shows' without ever looking at the paleo record or satellite data sets, nor understanding the limitations of the surface data or adjustments made to it. You are not practicing science at all - but are a crystal clear demonstration of Confirmation Bias and how smart people can be anti-scientific while thinking they are doing science.
Please note, I have a PhD in Physics (specifically Astrophysics) so if you want to debate whether I'm qualified to discuss the Scientific Method then we can go down that track. But it is clear that not only are is your approach deliberately and apparently proudly anti-scientific, but you don't even seem to know the Scientific Method nor much of the observational data. Please get out of your bad and anti-scientific habit immediately.
Did it make you crazy? probably !
Why won't you talk about the satellite data, David ?
"all you've done is showcase your own ignorance"
Huh? I suggest looking at OBSERVATIONAL REALITY as shown by the UAH and RSS satellites, and the well-sited surface stations. As well as check out the quotes of the architects of the wealth-redistribution scheme. It appears you are ignorant of the satellite data, and closed minded to observational reality. I urge you to drop the dogmatism and employ The Scientific Method - where observation is king.
"Feel the Bern!"
ROFL !!!!! you say that I'm "showcasing my own ignorance" when you are so economically illiterate you are advocating an old white fossil whose failed ideas come out of the 1970s and were comprehensively destroyed with the collapse of the unsustainable socialist model (which is also dragging Europe down at the moment, just collapsing more slowly). Well, if there is a prize for "showcasing ignorance" then you Statist Collectivists really would get first place. LOL !!! it is hard to believe that such ignorance of fundamental economics still exists. "WEALTH IS CREATED" - once you understand this then you see socialism is not only unworkable it is also deeply immoral. Voluntary (and thus, moral) charity is more efficient than Involuntary (and thus, immoral) socialism.
"extreme right wing paranoia, not science."
But I urge you to look at the OBSERVATIONAL DATA, and I provide links to quotes directly from sources. It seems that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Alamists such as yourself are driven by extreme Left wing Collectivist indoctrination that must deny observational reality (UAH and RSS satellite data, and well-sited surface stations) as well as the quotes from the architects of the wealth-redistribution scam. What are you guys going to do when you find the observational evidence shows the Earth is round ?