The is MASSIVE pollution when the solar cells are created and disposed of. Did you not think of this ? internal and external security is a function of government, Solar boondoggles are not (where the wealth is transferred from the poor taxpayer to the rich). Be and think an indoctrinated slave if you want to, just get out of the way of us that don't.
If Google couldn't get solar work how are GM going to ? oh, I know, taxpayer subsidies - where wealth is transferred from the poor to the rich in the form of high-tech boondoggles.
I don't know if "performing well under the hood" includes programming to the Microsoft APIs, but I find the Microsoft APIs to be hideous (after suffering connecting to them for 20 years). Even when they went to dotNet they couldn't resist stinking the interfaces up with pseudo-Hungarian notation on their interfaces. Yukk. I'm sure many Slashdotters who have never worked with cleaner designs will FEEL that Microsoft has the be-all and end-all of API design. I beg to differ, and I know I'm not alone.
Personally, I find Microsoft's ecosystem vastly less reliable than alternatives. The one area they are still ahead is graphic drivers. But in the browser space Edge is still not a pleasant experience with stutters and trying to convince me to use Bing and other Microsoft junk I don't want.
So you keep claiming, but repeating it louder isn't going to help. If you can produce this supposed evidence, try doing that, because spamming links to some political site won't sway anyone. And while you're at it, see if you can explain away the mountains of evidence showing the accelerating rise in temperatures for the last 150 years.
I don't have to prove anything because I represent the Null Hypothesis. It is you who has to provide the proof for the CAGW theory. I bet you have never looked at the specific prediction of CAGW and compared the satellite evidence verses the surface station record (for sites not affected ny the Urban Heat Island effect, and stations that are providing *real* data and not *estimated* data). Have you ever done this ????? I bet you have no - yet you have very strong opinions about something for which you actually know nothing and have failed to do even basic fact checking on. Shame on you !
With regard to "political site", these are the words of the people running the Green Scam trying to extort money and power from taxpayers, They are not my words, but THEIR OWN WORDS. It is completely relevant. But again like an ignoramus you dismiss the evidence without actually doing a 1 minute job of checking the facts out for yourself. You are acting exactly like the North Korean peasantry does. Shame on you again !
Let me guess, you've got no evidence for this accusation of malfeasance either, right? Your sole basis for all this seems to be that you don't like the results, and something something conspiracy. Well too bad, science doesn't work that way. You can spout Lysenkoism all you like, but from here it looks much more like you're the one denying the evidence you dislike, and producing none of your own.
Do you not understand the Scientific Method ? *******ANY******* observation which contradicts theory is enough to falsify the theory. The MASSIVE and INCREASING difference between the predictions of the CAGW simulations and observed reality are enough to falsify the hypothesis. Furthermore, you can easy see the fraud by comparing the adjusted NOAA and NASA data as they continue to inject trends into the data year after year. They are artificially cooling the past to inject a linear trend into the data. You don't need anything except their own data - because they are adjusting their own data by revising the past. You would see this if you bothered to actually compare their published data from 2005 to their data for the same period published today. But you have failed to do your basic homework and are now ranting about data you have never looked at. Shame on you thrice !
NOAA are completely open [noaa.gov] about their data correction methods, which are peer reviewed, confirmed independently [york.ac.uk], and are corroborated by data & analysis from NASA, CRU, and other international agencies. And if you still don't like it, take their raw data [noaa.gov] (yes, it's always been available) and do your own analysis (if you can get your methodology through peer review, ha ha). That's what the Berkeley Earth [berkeleyearth.org] people did (you can check their data [berkeleyearth.org] too) - and surprise surprise, their results agreed with NOAA, NASA, and the others. So your unsubstantiated claims of "tainted" data are laughable in the face of the real evidence.
Of course if you take their data you get the same results, you silly fool. That is the whole point. When the data are corrupted every downstream product is corrupted. And no, NOAA are NOT open about why the adjustments to their datasets are changing their adjustments by progressively cooling the past and injecting a linear trend of greater and greater gradient with every revision of the SAME historical data. It is THIS that is fraudulent - and you are unable to see it - because you have failed to examine the two published data sets for yourself.
Now, you admit that the warming started 150 years ag
Do you know the hypothesis of CAGW ? do you know that not only has this hypothesis not been conformed by experimental evidence but the EXACT OPPOSITE has been *****OBSERVED*****. Computer simulations are no match for observed reality. I bet you don't even know the litmus test of CAGW, do you? hence you believe the falsified data from NOAA, yes, FALSIFIED. Once the source data has been falsified then EVERYTHING else is tainted. You can see this easily if you compare an earlier NOAA data set from a few years ago from the data sets they publish today - they are injecting trends into their data. This is pure Lysenkosim to support the agenda of the one-percenter globalists. And you, as a zombie minion, go along with the lie. No amount of evidence will ever persuade you from your religious beliefs. You REFUSE to use the Scientific Method, or else you would understand that CAGW is ALREADY falsified based on the satellite data.
There are many people here who talk about CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) but don't understand the hypothesis at all.
CAGW posits that as humans emit CO2 that there will be a logarithmic increase in temperature. The current estimate of CO2s direct effects is a rise of 1.1K per doubling of CO2 (which means, the effect of CO2 decreases logrithmically as you linearly increase CO2 concentration). No one disputes this, not the CAGW proponents nor the skeptics. So let us get past this. Temperature rises caused by this direct effect are NOT catastrophic, and given plants are starved of CO2 and grow better in higher temperatures the gradual temperature increase caused by the direct effects of increasing CO2 are beneficial. Already we see the planet is 'greening' as plants can grow in areas with less water if they instead get more CO2. This is Freeman Dyson's position, and has been confirmed by recent satellite observations.
The next effect is sometimes called the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect'. This is the temperature increase caused by non-CO2 greenhouse gases - primarily water vapor (since water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas; a 2% increase in water vapor is equivalent to a 100% increase in CO2). The computer simulations made by the IPCC and others estimate the most probable value of this Enhanced Greenhouse Effect is around 3 C as a result of increased water vapor per doubling of CO2. This is a decrease from earlier models where it was estimated as 4-5 C per doubling of CO2. HOWEVER, this is based on computer simulations, but unfortunately the simulations cannot model the water vapor cycle accurately - very important heat transfer mechanisms like convection simply are not modeled correctly. As a result, the computer simulations have not been able to predict the observed climate changes. The computer simulation keep having parameters adjusted to try fit the observed data, but their forward predictions have NEVER matched observed reality once time has passed and the predictions can be checked. Thus, the computer simulations (which according to the Scientific Method are 'hypothesis' and NOT 'observation') are said to have 'no skill' in prediction.
What is ACTUALLY observed by two independent satellite data sets, as well as thousands of balloon observations for the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect' is that the 'feedbacks' mostly due to water vapor are around 1 C and possibly zero or even very slightly negative. However, many people cling to the flawed computer simulations and reject the observed reality which shows a vastly more gradual rise (punctuated by spikes caused by El Nino, which happens approximately ecer 4 years, and is usually followed by La Nina cooling).
So, the difference between CAGW proponents ('alarmists') and CAGW opponents ('skeptics') is NOT a dispute about the mild, and mostly beneficial direct effects of CO2, but a dispute about the severity of the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect' (as measured by the Transient Climate Sensitivity and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity). The computer modelers have public faith in their models (although in the various 'Climategate' releases of emails the modellers understand their simulations don't match reality, check out the Climategate emails sometime) despite the fact the models do not match observed reality. The 'skeptics' point to the observed reality and show that the dire predictions made in the past don't come close to observed behavior, therefore the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect' is MUCH (by a factor of three at least) smaller than the IPCC has claimed (despite the IPCC adjusting the claim down from outrageously bad to merely silly with the release of each report). This is what is being debated: do you trust computer simulations, or the satellite and balloon observations. Note: surface observations are so sparse as to be worthless, have a large and increasing proportion of estimated data (which are not observations but guesses), and the bad effect of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect - when UHI and es
The real shills come from the CAGW camp, who are working towards a planetary government which is not a democracy. Here are their own words: http://green-agenda.com/
Do the sheep know they are being prepared for culling? do you?
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong,
Your belief is wrong. Consensus means nothing and is not part of the Scientific Method. You have been hoodwinked by a scam. I don't ask you to admit this to anyone except yourself. And learn why the CAGW alarmists are doing what they are doing, and do NOT care about the actual science: http://green-agenda.com/
Actually, did you not know the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm period were warmer than today? This is why Vikings farmed in Greenland and wine grapes could be grown as far north as York in England. Now the graves of the Vikings are under 'permafrost', but it wasn't frosty in their day, because it has been much hotter in the past ! You talk about 'nutters' yet seem to be defending a position for which you don't even understand even the basic counter evidence. Furthermore, I would hope you would look at the statement of the leaders of the CAGW movement: http://green-agenda.com/
Easy. Real Scientists follow the Scientific Method. They are empiricists who look at ALL the data, and if the data doesn't match their hypothesis they adapt their hypothesis.
The pseudo-scientists are also easy to spot. They talk about "consensus" (which is not part of the Scientific Method) because they don't want to talk about the satellite observations. They talk about computer models, but refuse to discuss why the computer models don't match observed reality. They discard any and all observations that don't match their hypothesis. They call for the legal punishment of their opponents. They care more about global wealth redistribution than whether the empirical data matches their Statist Collectivist worldview. They seek to control the flow of money, and want to dictate how you can live your life: http://green-agenda.com/
Perhaps you should the statements of intentions from the vast left-wing conspirators themselves, you'll be shocked http://green-agenda.com/
Does it never occur to you that your hypothesis could be wrong? that your interlocutors may, in fact, know a lot more than you suppose - and they understand not only the argument for skepticism, but also the argument made by CAGW alarmist/propagandists ?
Based on your statements, there is a lot you clearly do not know. Read through the statements made in the link I have posted. Oh yeah, if you didn't know about the 500 million people who will survive the intended cull, you are not one of them. Do not say you were not warned.
The problem is, the Statist Collectivists of the Left also love The State (and its leaders). Just like the North Koreans. The Leftists may be well meaning, but they don't seem to understand that the State has no power except that which it takes from Individuals. And the State has no money except that which it takes from Individuals, as well as the disgusting practice of borrowing against the future labor of unborn generations for vote bribes. The following mass-murdering ideologies could not function without the well-meaning but State-loving Modern Liberals: National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Maoist Socialism, North Korean Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, North Vietnamese Socialism, Cambodian Socialism, Cuban Socialism, Angolan Socialism, East German Socialism, Hungarian Socialism, Libyan Socialism, etc etc etc. Do you see any connection? most Leftists cannot !
All those who are happy with Statist Collectivism where they consent to the Collective oppressing or persecuting Individuals who dissent from the majority view are the enemies of Free People and the Free World. Involuntary Socialism is not required to help people, voluntary charity is - but only one of these grows the State so that it is harmful to Individuals. Anyone who doesn't yet understand this allows Collectivism to crush Individualism ! Don't support Rule by the Elites (Statist Collectviism) !!!!
Which means the root of the problem is not ethnicity, nor poverty, nor 'culture'. The root of the problem is the example of Mohammed (a mythological figure designed by Caliph Abd al-Malik to advance Arab Imperialism) and the specific doctrines of the totalitarian political ideology called "Sharia" (Sharia is NOT simply a religious law, it asserts it applies to all people for all times, which makes it a POLITICAL system).
ARE YOU FSCKING BLIND ? there is a common trait that you are specifically indoctrinated not to see. The media try and hide it. As to the Soros-paid elites. There is a totalitarian ideology that is tearing up the World. In EVERY country where this ideology either is or neighbors there is violence - following the example of Mohammed (even if he was mythological) exactly. ISIS is following Sharia EXACTLY as it is supposed to be followed. Stop lying to us, and worst of all, stop lying to yourself. There are zero dirt poor Buddhists waging terrorism against non-believers. There are zero Amish. There are zero animists. Every attack is simply following the example of Mohammed: warfare, terrorism, crucifictions, murder of apostates, sex slavery, pedophilia against infidel children. Stop consenting to this evil with your silence - your dismissal of this evil makes you evil in your complicity of silence. Don't be evil ! You are completely on the wrong side of history on this one.
What's the point? The Germans invited the jihadis into their country. When jihadis attack in Europe they are always "known to the police", but the Europeans lack the sanity required to either prevent them from entering Europe in the first place or to kick them out once they show signs of following Mohammed's call to wage war on the hated unbelievers (Koran 9:5, Koran 9:29 and about a hundred other verses that abrogate all other verses based on the doctrine of abrogation).
The State already knows who are bad guys are, where they live, and where they pray - going all Big Brother is only going to allow the State to persecute political opponents and dissidents and will make zero difference to stopping the jihadis - because they could stop them already using information the State already possesses. If one was sufficiently conspiratorially minded one would conclude that jihadi terror formed an excuse for the elites to install such surveillance so they could keep tabs on political opponents and dissidents. Of course, Big Brother is our friend and we must never commit ThoughtCrime and the self-selecting sociopathic 'elites' always put our interests over theirs. Right ?
Yawn. You can't address the point of today so you deflect to an irrelevant strawman. Typical of those who support the demographic transformation will will inevitably result in the destruction of Enlightenment Civilization. Is this what you want and why you defend that agenda with your strawman ?
Achieve demographic transformation by ensuring the existing Western populations are encouraged to be gay, or don't have children, or have sex dolls. None of these are particularly harmful on the individual scale, but when frequent in a society it means the society does not reproduce at replacement rate. As Mark Steyn says, "The future belongs to those who show up for it". Meanwhile, import fast-breeding replacement populations that have no cultural affinity for the places they are entering. George Soros, and others, have spent 7 billion and a great deal of political capital pushing this change. It is madness.
Yawn. You didn't even look at the data, did you? the fact you have such a strong opinion but have not actually looked at the data yourself proves my point. Look at the data I have presented, it is the Scientific Method ! why don't you loons get that the only reality is the DATA, and it shows normal fluctuations.
Do you have anything to refute the data I have presented? I thought not.
1km^3 of land ice makes about 750-800km^2 of sea ice - and once it's on the sea, it's already affected sea levels.
According to the sea level data the sea level has been at approximate the same rate for a LONG time. Here is Data from the Australian CSIRO: http://realclimatescience.com/...
Remember, before 1950 even the IPCC claims all the rise is natural, and only after 1950 is there any anthropogenic component. So, based on the ACTUAL DATA do you see any statistically significant change from natural to 'man-made' ? No, you do not.
Disclosure: I work with climate scientists. They're fed up to the back teeth of ignorant people claiming that increases in Antarctic sea ice mean AGW isn't a "thing". The reality is that summer ice minimums keep decreasing.
I was an astrophysicist, and we real scientists are sick to the back teeth of climate so-called 'scientists' refusing to the use the Scientific Method, ignoring data they don't like (any contra-data falsifies a theory), and acting like righteous zealots against any 'heretic' who actually does objectively follow the Scientific Method and looks at ALL the data, including the paleo record.
Most scientists who actually study climate and are actually experts in the field are deeply worried. What they're saying publically mostly errs on the cautious side, simply because they get shat on politically when they start telling it like it is.
Nonsense. Recent surveys show that only 53% of scientists think that humans have any measurable impact on the climate (AGW) and much fewer think it will be catastrophic (CAGW). Even the internal emails revealed in Climategate I, II, and III show the pro-CAGW climate modellers understand that their models don't work but they cannot publicly admit this.
It is clear you have very little understanding of the skeptics position. The Scientific Method requires you to understand the skeptics' arguments *****from their own mouths**** and not the disinformation put out by the pro-CAGW loons. And I will say it again, you are also required to account for ALL THE DATA - not just the data you like.
My personal worry is the increasing risk of an anoxic oceanic event - which is something most climate scientists haven't considered (or won't discuss publically) even though the possibility was raised as far back as 1976. Again, they'll get shat on if they start bringing this up. It's bad enough when they point out the economic and ecological effects of coral bleaching and ocean acidification that's already occuring.
If you are worried about that then perhaps you should get a grip. How come you ecoloons completely lose perspective - you are even worse at doommongering than the islamicists who think the Day of Judgement is just about on us with fighting near Dabiq (the islamic version of Armageddon). It's like your life is not complete unless you can be miserable worrying about things that just aren't going to happen, all because you don't understand the ways how oxygen gets in the ocean in the first place.
Learn the Scientific Method. Use it. Listen to the arguments made against the CAGW hypothesis, from the skeptics themselves (not from pro-CAGW propagandists distorting the arguments), look at ALL the DATA. Get some perspective, and STOP BEING A MISERABLE DOOMSAYER. Complex mammalian life has survived multiple massive asteroids, all sorts of Solar variability (like the extremes of the Minoan Warm Period to the Little Ice Age), massive volcanic outgassing transforming the atmosphere, large periodic orbital distance changes, etc etc
Oh, and if you didn't know, the skeptics include the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China (who may know a thing or two), half the scientists of the West (that i
The Scientific Method doesn't care about your opinion. You should try applying it some time. You cannot refute the data, so you talk about your feelings. This is a bad habit you have, and anti-scientific.
Here is the late-summer Arctic ice extent. Temperatures drop below freezing in a week from now and the Arctic ice will start accumulating again (this is from an American source): http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i...
The coasts of Greenland are losing some ice, which may be why this base is being expose, but a much larger interior are in the interior is putting on a lot of ice/snow. The pattern of where ice is gained and lost seems to vary annually, depending on sea conditions and also changes in wind/storms.
Given that the Antarctic is putting on ice and the total ice cover of the globe is actually increasing (if you look at the measurements) then there isn't much of a reason to panic - especially as those that study solar activity have a prediction of Maunder-Minimum conditions by about 2030, where the global temperature will decrease drastically. So relax, enjoy the good weather (El Nino this year, which was wonderful) while it lasts, amigas y amigos.
Don't forget to always check the observed data, as computer climate models are not data according to the Scientific Method, they are considered "hypothesis" and observational data can falsify those hypothesis.
According to whom? Their results agree with all the other major research groups, so either their "corruption" actually made the data more accurate (as they say), or maybe they're just one part of the vast global conspiracy of climate scientists to perpetuate a massive hoax, against their own best interests, and somehow leaving no hard evidence anywhere..
Do a comparison between previous releases of NOAA data and newer releases. There are systematic trends introduced. Did you not know about this? you are well-behind the eight-ball.
Furthermore look at the adjustments of the published 'adjusted' data versus the original source data, there is a trend injected to cool the past and increase the first time derivative of temperature. Did you not know this?
Then there is the fact that the proportion of NOAA released data that is estimated has been increasing steadily. The values of this estimated data inject warming that is not seen with the well-sited surface data. Did you not know this?
The independent data collecting groups such as the RSS and UAH satellite programs disagree with the NOAA. The reason many researchers don't disagree with NOAA is because NOAA is the source of their data, most researchers are working with contaminated data, hence no matter what they do after that the results are skewed.
With regard to comspiracy, do you understand the meaning of the word "Lysenkosim" ? when governments fund 'research' to the tune of $29 Billion a year and only projects promoting the CAGW narrative are funded, do you think that just might result in some loss of objectivity?
Nonsense, you don't need to know the exact figure to say the tropospheric temperatures are clearly going up. Maybe not by much - or maybe even faster than we think.
Epic fail. Uncertainties are hugely important. One cannot assess the statistical significance of any result without understanding the uncertainties. I have a PhD in Physics but even in my first year of study I would have told you that discounting the massive uncertainties in this paper (so large that it renders the differences in expectation value insignificant) shows a complete lack of understanding of modern experimental technique.
Which observations? Please cite them. If you're referring to the TCS, that's not "observed", that's calculated from the models - and there's been a wide range of calculated values for it.
In the Scientific Method a hypothesis is constructed. These are the calculated TCS values you mention. However, TCS is observable, and we now have 36 years of measurements. The observed TCS is much lower than the modeled value - which shows the hypothesis is WRONG. This is understandable since the models fail utterly to model water vapor accurately, yet water vapor is THE dominant determinant of global climate. Did you not know this?
Claiming that one or two cherry-picked measurements somehow refutes the last 40+ years of peer-reviewed evidence from a vast array of sources shows exactly the blinkered willingness to ignore the contra-evidence you're accusing others of. Get back to me when you can cite actual studies that not only contradict but explain all the evidence that's been summarised in the last few IPCC reports, like a real sceptic would. Making unsubstantiated claims and trying to cast doubt on existing data while providing none of your own just pigeonholes you firmly into the "another loonier denier" camp
Why don't you understand the Scientific Method? ANY values that are contra to the hypothesis invalidate the hypothesis - which means the hypothesis has to be discarded or amended. Except it is you pseudo-religious loons from the Cult of Climate Change who refuse to be objective and use the Scientific Method. You cannot dismiss contra evidence with silly memes like 'cherry picking'. The fact of the matter is the computer simulations are WRONG and do not match realty - whi
And yet an Anonymous Coward is not political? I get paid nothing for pointing out the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE against the CAGW theory - ya know, like the Scientific Method requires us to. However, rather than be paid nothing for pointing out the science if I wanted to shill I would simply promote Global Warming and get some of the $29 Billion in research grants each year to promote that narrative (a false narrative that doesn't match all the observational data).
To me it sounds like you are an AC sockpuppet propagaandist conducting ad hominem attacks on people that point out the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that destroys the UN's political narrative.
Slashdot Mirror
The is MASSIVE pollution when the solar cells are created and disposed of. Did you not think of this ? internal and external security is a function of government, Solar boondoggles are not (where the wealth is transferred from the poor taxpayer to the rich). Be and think an indoctrinated slave if you want to, just get out of the way of us that don't.
If Google couldn't get solar work how are GM going to ? oh, I know, taxpayer subsidies - where wealth is transferred from the poor to the rich in the form of high-tech boondoggles.
I don't know if "performing well under the hood" includes programming to the Microsoft APIs, but I find the Microsoft APIs to be hideous (after suffering connecting to them for 20 years). Even when they went to dotNet they couldn't resist stinking the interfaces up with pseudo-Hungarian notation on their interfaces. Yukk. I'm sure many Slashdotters who have never worked with cleaner designs will FEEL that Microsoft has the be-all and end-all of API design. I beg to differ, and I know I'm not alone.
Personally, I find Microsoft's ecosystem vastly less reliable than alternatives. The one area they are still ahead is graphic drivers. But in the browser space Edge is still not a pleasant experience with stutters and trying to convince me to use Bing and other Microsoft junk I don't want.
So you keep claiming, but repeating it louder isn't going to help. If you can produce this supposed evidence, try doing that, because spamming links to some political site won't sway anyone. And while you're at it, see if you can explain away the mountains of evidence showing the accelerating rise in temperatures for the last 150 years.
I don't have to prove anything because I represent the Null Hypothesis. It is you who has to provide the proof for the CAGW theory. I bet you have never looked at the specific prediction of CAGW and compared the satellite evidence verses the surface station record (for sites not affected ny the Urban Heat Island effect, and stations that are providing *real* data and not *estimated* data). Have you ever done this ????? I bet you have no - yet you have very strong opinions about something for which you actually know nothing and have failed to do even basic fact checking on. Shame on you !
With regard to "political site", these are the words of the people running the Green Scam trying to extort money and power from taxpayers, They are not my words, but THEIR OWN WORDS. It is completely relevant. But again like an ignoramus you dismiss the evidence without actually doing a 1 minute job of checking the facts out for yourself. You are acting exactly like the North Korean peasantry does. Shame on you again !
Let me guess, you've got no evidence for this accusation of malfeasance either, right? Your sole basis for all this seems to be that you don't like the results, and something something conspiracy. Well too bad, science doesn't work that way. You can spout Lysenkoism all you like, but from here it looks much more like you're the one denying the evidence you dislike, and producing none of your own.
Do you not understand the Scientific Method ? *******ANY******* observation which contradicts theory is enough to falsify the theory. The MASSIVE and INCREASING difference between the predictions of the CAGW simulations and observed reality are enough to falsify the hypothesis. Furthermore, you can easy see the fraud by comparing the adjusted NOAA and NASA data as they continue to inject trends into the data year after year. They are artificially cooling the past to inject a linear trend into the data. You don't need anything except their own data - because they are adjusting their own data by revising the past. You would see this if you bothered to actually compare their published data from 2005 to their data for the same period published today. But you have failed to do your basic homework and are now ranting about data you have never looked at. Shame on you thrice !
NOAA are completely open [noaa.gov] about their data correction methods, which are peer reviewed, confirmed independently [york.ac.uk], and are corroborated by data & analysis from NASA, CRU, and other international agencies. And if you still don't like it, take their raw data [noaa.gov] (yes, it's always been available) and do your own analysis (if you can get your methodology through peer review, ha ha). That's what the Berkeley Earth [berkeleyearth.org] people did (you can check their data [berkeleyearth.org] too) - and surprise surprise, their results agreed with NOAA, NASA, and the others. So your unsubstantiated claims of "tainted" data are laughable in the face of the real evidence.
Of course if you take their data you get the same results, you silly fool. That is the whole point. When the data are corrupted every downstream product is corrupted. And no, NOAA are NOT open about why the adjustments to their datasets are changing their adjustments by progressively cooling the past and injecting a linear trend of greater and greater gradient with every revision of the SAME historical data. It is THIS that is fraudulent - and you are unable to see it - because you have failed to examine the two published data sets for yourself.
Now, you admit that the warming started 150 years ag
Do you know the hypothesis of CAGW ? do you know that not only has this hypothesis not been conformed by experimental evidence but the EXACT OPPOSITE has been *****OBSERVED*****. Computer simulations are no match for observed reality. I bet you don't even know the litmus test of CAGW, do you? hence you believe the falsified data from NOAA, yes, FALSIFIED. Once the source data has been falsified then EVERYTHING else is tainted. You can see this easily if you compare an earlier NOAA data set from a few years ago from the data sets they publish today - they are injecting trends into their data. This is pure Lysenkosim to support the agenda of the one-percenter globalists. And you, as a zombie minion, go along with the lie. No amount of evidence will ever persuade you from your religious beliefs. You REFUSE to use the Scientific Method, or else you would understand that CAGW is ALREADY falsified based on the satellite data.
There are many people here who talk about CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) but don't understand the hypothesis at all.
CAGW posits that as humans emit CO2 that there will be a logarithmic increase in temperature. The current estimate of CO2s direct effects is a rise of 1.1K per doubling of CO2 (which means, the effect of CO2 decreases logrithmically as you linearly increase CO2 concentration). No one disputes this, not the CAGW proponents nor the skeptics. So let us get past this. Temperature rises caused by this direct effect are NOT catastrophic, and given plants are starved of CO2 and grow better in higher temperatures the gradual temperature increase caused by the direct effects of increasing CO2 are beneficial. Already we see the planet is 'greening' as plants can grow in areas with less water if they instead get more CO2. This is Freeman Dyson's position, and has been confirmed by recent satellite observations.
The next effect is sometimes called the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect'. This is the temperature increase caused by non-CO2 greenhouse gases - primarily water vapor (since water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas; a 2% increase in water vapor is equivalent to a 100% increase in CO2). The computer simulations made by the IPCC and others estimate the most probable value of this Enhanced Greenhouse Effect is around 3 C as a result of increased water vapor per doubling of CO2. This is a decrease from earlier models where it was estimated as 4-5 C per doubling of CO2. HOWEVER, this is based on computer simulations, but unfortunately the simulations cannot model the water vapor cycle accurately - very important heat transfer mechanisms like convection simply are not modeled correctly. As a result, the computer simulations have not been able to predict the observed climate changes. The computer simulation keep having parameters adjusted to try fit the observed data, but their forward predictions have NEVER matched observed reality once time has passed and the predictions can be checked. Thus, the computer simulations (which according to the Scientific Method are 'hypothesis' and NOT 'observation') are said to have 'no skill' in prediction.
What is ACTUALLY observed by two independent satellite data sets, as well as thousands of balloon observations for the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect' is that the 'feedbacks' mostly due to water vapor are around 1 C and possibly zero or even very slightly negative. However, many people cling to the flawed computer simulations and reject the observed reality which shows a vastly more gradual rise (punctuated by spikes caused by El Nino, which happens approximately ecer 4 years, and is usually followed by La Nina cooling).
So, the difference between CAGW proponents ('alarmists') and CAGW opponents ('skeptics') is NOT a dispute about the mild, and mostly beneficial direct effects of CO2, but a dispute about the severity of the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect' (as measured by the Transient Climate Sensitivity and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity). The computer modelers have public faith in their models (although in the various 'Climategate' releases of emails the modellers understand their simulations don't match reality, check out the Climategate emails sometime) despite the fact the models do not match observed reality. The 'skeptics' point to the observed reality and show that the dire predictions made in the past don't come close to observed behavior, therefore the 'Enhanced Greenhouse Effect' is MUCH (by a factor of three at least) smaller than the IPCC has claimed (despite the IPCC adjusting the claim down from outrageously bad to merely silly with the release of each report). This is what is being debated: do you trust computer simulations, or the satellite and balloon observations. Note: surface observations are so sparse as to be worthless, have a large and increasing proportion of estimated data (which are not observations but guesses), and the bad effect of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect - when UHI and es
Good post. Furthermore, even honest scientists are bamboozled because the source data is being corrupted. Deliberately !
http://green-agenda.com/
The real shills come from the CAGW camp, who are working towards a planetary government which is not a democracy. Here are their own words:
http://green-agenda.com/
Do the sheep know they are being prepared for culling? do you?
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong,
Your belief is wrong. Consensus means nothing and is not part of the Scientific Method. You have been hoodwinked by a scam. I don't ask you to admit this to anyone except yourself. And learn why the CAGW alarmists are doing what they are doing, and do NOT care about the actual science:
http://green-agenda.com/
Actually, did you not know the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm period were warmer than today? This is why Vikings farmed in Greenland and wine grapes could be grown as far north as York in England. Now the graves of the Vikings are under 'permafrost', but it wasn't frosty in their day, because it has been much hotter in the past ! You talk about 'nutters' yet seem to be defending a position for which you don't even understand even the basic counter evidence. Furthermore, I would hope you would look at the statement of the leaders of the CAGW movement:
http://green-agenda.com/
Easy. Real Scientists follow the Scientific Method. They are empiricists who look at ALL the data, and if the data doesn't match their hypothesis they adapt their hypothesis.
The pseudo-scientists are also easy to spot. They talk about "consensus" (which is not part of the Scientific Method) because they don't want to talk about the satellite observations. They talk about computer models, but refuse to discuss why the computer models don't match observed reality. They discard any and all observations that don't match their hypothesis. They call for the legal punishment of their opponents. They care more about global wealth redistribution than whether the empirical data matches their Statist Collectivist worldview. They seek to control the flow of money, and want to dictate how you can live your life:
http://green-agenda.com/
Perhaps you should the statements of intentions from the vast left-wing conspirators themselves, you'll be shocked
http://green-agenda.com/
Does it never occur to you that your hypothesis could be wrong? that your interlocutors may, in fact, know a lot more than you suppose - and they understand not only the argument for skepticism, but also the argument made by CAGW alarmist/propagandists ?
Based on your statements, there is a lot you clearly do not know. Read through the statements made in the link I have posted. Oh yeah, if you didn't know about the 500 million people who will survive the intended cull, you are not one of them. Do not say you were not warned.
The problem is, the Statist Collectivists of the Left also love The State (and its leaders). Just like the North Koreans. The Leftists may be well meaning, but they don't seem to understand that the State has no power except that which it takes from Individuals. And the State has no money except that which it takes from Individuals, as well as the disgusting practice of borrowing against the future labor of unborn generations for vote bribes. The following mass-murdering ideologies could not function without the well-meaning but State-loving Modern Liberals: National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Maoist Socialism, North Korean Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, North Vietnamese Socialism, Cambodian Socialism, Cuban Socialism, Angolan Socialism, East German Socialism, Hungarian Socialism, Libyan Socialism, etc etc etc. Do you see any connection? most Leftists cannot !
All those who are happy with Statist Collectivism where they consent to the Collective oppressing or persecuting Individuals who dissent from the majority view are the enemies of Free People and the Free World. Involuntary Socialism is not required to help people, voluntary charity is - but only one of these grows the State so that it is harmful to Individuals. Anyone who doesn't yet understand this allows Collectivism to crush Individualism ! Don't support Rule by the Elites (Statist Collectviism) !!!!
Milo Yiannopoulos should sue Kim Jong Un for infringing the trademark of his own streaming service, also called "ManBang".
Which means the root of the problem is not ethnicity, nor poverty, nor 'culture'. The root of the problem is the example of Mohammed (a mythological figure designed by Caliph Abd al-Malik to advance Arab Imperialism) and the specific doctrines of the totalitarian political ideology called "Sharia" (Sharia is NOT simply a religious law, it asserts it applies to all people for all times, which makes it a POLITICAL system).
ARE YOU FSCKING BLIND ? there is a common trait that you are specifically indoctrinated not to see. The media try and hide it. As to the Soros-paid elites. There is a totalitarian ideology that is tearing up the World. In EVERY country where this ideology either is or neighbors there is violence - following the example of Mohammed (even if he was mythological) exactly. ISIS is following Sharia EXACTLY as it is supposed to be followed. Stop lying to us, and worst of all, stop lying to yourself. There are zero dirt poor Buddhists waging terrorism against non-believers. There are zero Amish. There are zero animists. Every attack is simply following the example of Mohammed: warfare, terrorism, crucifictions, murder of apostates, sex slavery, pedophilia against infidel children. Stop consenting to this evil with your silence - your dismissal of this evil makes you evil in your complicity of silence. Don't be evil ! You are completely on the wrong side of history on this one.
What's the point? The Germans invited the jihadis into their country. When jihadis attack in Europe they are always "known to the police", but the Europeans lack the sanity required to either prevent them from entering Europe in the first place or to kick them out once they show signs of following Mohammed's call to wage war on the hated unbelievers (Koran 9:5, Koran 9:29 and about a hundred other verses that abrogate all other verses based on the doctrine of abrogation).
The State already knows who are bad guys are, where they live, and where they pray - going all Big Brother is only going to allow the State to persecute political opponents and dissidents and will make zero difference to stopping the jihadis - because they could stop them already using information the State already possesses. If one was sufficiently conspiratorially minded one would conclude that jihadi terror formed an excuse for the elites to install such surveillance so they could keep tabs on political opponents and dissidents. Of course, Big Brother is our friend and we must never commit ThoughtCrime and the self-selecting sociopathic 'elites' always put our interests over theirs. Right ?
Yawn. You can't address the point of today so you deflect to an irrelevant strawman. Typical of those who support the demographic transformation will will inevitably result in the destruction of Enlightenment Civilization. Is this what you want and why you defend that agenda with your strawman ?
Achieve demographic transformation by ensuring the existing Western populations are encouraged to be gay, or don't have children, or have sex dolls. None of these are particularly harmful on the individual scale, but when frequent in a society it means the society does not reproduce at replacement rate. As Mark Steyn says, "The future belongs to those who show up for it". Meanwhile, import fast-breeding replacement populations that have no cultural affinity for the places they are entering. George Soros, and others, have spent 7 billion and a great deal of political capital pushing this change. It is madness.
Yawn. You didn't even look at the data, did you? the fact you have such a strong opinion but have not actually looked at the data yourself proves my point. Look at the data I have presented, it is the Scientific Method ! why don't you loons get that the only reality is the DATA, and it shows normal fluctuations.
Do you have anything to refute the data I have presented? I thought not.
1km^3 of land ice makes about 750-800km^2 of sea ice - and once it's on the sea, it's already affected sea levels.
According to the sea level data the sea level has been at approximate the same rate for a LONG time. Here is Data from the Australian CSIRO:
http://realclimatescience.com/...
Remember, before 1950 even the IPCC claims all the rise is natural, and only after 1950 is there any anthropogenic component. So, based on the ACTUAL DATA do you see any statistically significant change from natural to 'man-made' ? No, you do not.
Disclosure: I work with climate scientists. They're fed up to the back teeth of ignorant people claiming that increases in Antarctic sea ice mean AGW isn't a "thing". The reality is that summer ice minimums keep decreasing.
I was an astrophysicist, and we real scientists are sick to the back teeth of climate so-called 'scientists' refusing to the use the Scientific Method, ignoring data they don't like (any contra-data falsifies a theory), and acting like righteous zealots against any 'heretic' who actually does objectively follow the Scientific Method and looks at ALL the data, including the paleo record.
Most scientists who actually study climate and are actually experts in the field are deeply worried. What they're saying publically mostly errs on the cautious side, simply because they get shat on politically when they start telling it like it is.
Nonsense. Recent surveys show that only 53% of scientists think that humans have any measurable impact on the climate (AGW) and much fewer think it will be catastrophic (CAGW). Even the internal emails revealed in Climategate I, II, and III show the pro-CAGW climate modellers understand that their models don't work but they cannot publicly admit this.
It is clear you have very little understanding of the skeptics position. The Scientific Method requires you to understand the skeptics' arguments *****from their own mouths**** and not the disinformation put out by the pro-CAGW loons. And I will say it again, you are also required to account for ALL THE DATA - not just the data you like.
My personal worry is the increasing risk of an anoxic oceanic event - which is something most climate scientists haven't considered (or won't discuss publically) even though the possibility was raised as far back as 1976. Again, they'll get shat on if they start bringing this up. It's bad enough when they point out the economic and ecological effects of coral bleaching and ocean acidification that's already occuring.
If you are worried about that then perhaps you should get a grip. How come you ecoloons completely lose perspective - you are even worse at doommongering than the islamicists who think the Day of Judgement is just about on us with fighting near Dabiq (the islamic version of Armageddon). It's like your life is not complete unless you can be miserable worrying about things that just aren't going to happen, all because you don't understand the ways how oxygen gets in the ocean in the first place.
Learn the Scientific Method. Use it. Listen to the arguments made against the CAGW hypothesis, from the skeptics themselves (not from pro-CAGW propagandists distorting the arguments), look at ALL the DATA. Get some perspective, and STOP BEING A MISERABLE DOOMSAYER. Complex mammalian life has survived multiple massive asteroids, all sorts of Solar variability (like the extremes of the Minoan Warm Period to the Little Ice Age), massive volcanic outgassing transforming the atmosphere, large periodic orbital distance changes, etc etc
Oh, and if you didn't know, the skeptics include the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China (who may know a thing or two), half the scientists of the West (that i
The Scientific Method doesn't care about your opinion. You should try applying it some time. You cannot refute the data, so you talk about your feelings. This is a bad habit you have, and anti-scientific.
If we use the Scientific Method (rather than anecdotes) we look at data. Here is the Danish Meteorological Institute's measurements (Greenland is administered by Denmark)
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland...
Of particular interest is this graph:
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_d... Here is the Arctic Ice Extent:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice...
Here is the late-summer Arctic ice extent. Temperatures drop below freezing in a week from now and the Arctic ice will start accumulating again (this is from an American source):
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i...
The coasts of Greenland are losing some ice, which may be why this base is being expose, but a much larger interior are in the interior is putting on a lot of ice/snow. The pattern of where ice is gained and lost seems to vary annually, depending on sea conditions and also changes in wind/storms.
Given that the Antarctic is putting on ice and the total ice cover of the globe is actually increasing (if you look at the measurements) then there isn't much of a reason to panic - especially as those that study solar activity have a prediction of Maunder-Minimum conditions by about 2030, where the global temperature will decrease drastically. So relax, enjoy the good weather (El Nino this year, which was wonderful) while it lasts, amigas y amigos.
Don't forget to always check the observed data, as computer climate models are not data according to the Scientific Method, they are considered "hypothesis" and observational data can falsify those hypothesis.
According to whom? Their results agree with all the other major research groups, so either their "corruption" actually made the data more accurate (as they say), or maybe they're just one part of the vast global conspiracy of climate scientists to perpetuate a massive hoax, against their own best interests, and somehow leaving no hard evidence anywhere..
Do a comparison between previous releases of NOAA data and newer releases. There are systematic trends introduced. Did you not know about this? you are well-behind the eight-ball.
Furthermore look at the adjustments of the published 'adjusted' data versus the original source data, there is a trend injected to cool the past and increase the first time derivative of temperature. Did you not know this?
Then there is the fact that the proportion of NOAA released data that is estimated has been increasing steadily. The values of this estimated data inject warming that is not seen with the well-sited surface data. Did you not know this?
The independent data collecting groups such as the RSS and UAH satellite programs disagree with the NOAA. The reason many researchers don't disagree with NOAA is because NOAA is the source of their data, most researchers are working with contaminated data, hence no matter what they do after that the results are skewed.
With regard to comspiracy, do you understand the meaning of the word "Lysenkosim" ? when governments fund 'research' to the tune of $29 Billion a year and only projects promoting the CAGW narrative are funded, do you think that just might result in some loss of objectivity?
Nonsense, you don't need to know the exact figure to say the tropospheric temperatures are clearly going up. Maybe not by much - or maybe even faster than we think.
Epic fail. Uncertainties are hugely important. One cannot assess the statistical significance of any result without understanding the uncertainties. I have a PhD in Physics but even in my first year of study I would have told you that discounting the massive uncertainties in this paper (so large that it renders the differences in expectation value insignificant) shows a complete lack of understanding of modern experimental technique.
Which observations? Please cite them. If you're referring to the TCS, that's not "observed", that's calculated from the models - and there's been a wide range of calculated values for it.
In the Scientific Method a hypothesis is constructed. These are the calculated TCS values you mention. However, TCS is observable, and we now have 36 years of measurements. The observed TCS is much lower than the modeled value - which shows the hypothesis is WRONG. This is understandable since the models fail utterly to model water vapor accurately, yet water vapor is THE dominant determinant of global climate. Did you not know this?
Claiming that one or two cherry-picked measurements somehow refutes the last 40+ years of peer-reviewed evidence from a vast array of sources shows exactly the blinkered willingness to ignore the contra-evidence you're accusing others of. Get back to me when you can cite actual studies that not only contradict but explain all the evidence that's been summarised in the last few IPCC reports, like a real sceptic would. Making unsubstantiated claims and trying to cast doubt on existing data while providing none of your own just pigeonholes you firmly into the "another loonier denier" camp
Why don't you understand the Scientific Method? ANY values that are contra to the hypothesis invalidate the hypothesis - which means the hypothesis has to be discarded or amended. Except it is you pseudo-religious loons from the Cult of Climate Change who refuse to be objective and use the Scientific Method. You cannot dismiss contra evidence with silly memes like 'cherry picking'. The fact of the matter is the computer simulations are WRONG and do not match realty - whi
And yet an Anonymous Coward is not political? I get paid nothing for pointing out the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE against the CAGW theory - ya know, like the Scientific Method requires us to. However, rather than be paid nothing for pointing out the science if I wanted to shill I would simply promote Global Warming and get some of the $29 Billion in research grants each year to promote that narrative (a false narrative that doesn't match all the observational data).
To me it sounds like you are an AC sockpuppet propagaandist conducting ad hominem attacks on people that point out the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that destroys the UN's political narrative.