If you've got a web site and you can download your thesis from there, then it doesn't matter the terms because you haven't transferred exclusive electronic distribution rights to your University or a third party. Then, just to be sure, copy it to a preprint server that doesn't allow revocation of distribution rights. for example arXiv, or the equivalent in your field. At that point you've at least guaranteed distribution rights.
A.22LR isn't really up to the task. There are too many ways for it to penetrate without resulting in certain death. If you want a certain kill with a.22 you're better off with a shot to the carotid, but that'll take some time to kill you might be found before you're done. If you want to kill with a shot to the brain you need something with enough energy to cause major disruption, and that's going to be a mess.
Chemisty, on the other hand, can be pretty foolproof. You need two things, something that will put you out, and something that will take you out. They don't necessarily need to be different things. Best case is probably a series of injections, but then you need to build a machine to administer them, so you don't need to ask a person to do it.
BS. Atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds depend on more than just CO2. If you double CO2, and fail to account for all the other variables that have changed over the same period of time, you don't have anything.
Sorry, you've just failed climate science. And most other sciences as well. Imagine where we'd be if the first chemists said "we can't know anything until we know everything." If you assume that water vapor, cloud and other effects are linearly dependent on CO2 levels in a narrow range of temperatures, then from modeling the past climate you can determine the climate sensitivity to CO2 without determining the size of each of the feedback mechanisms. As time goes on you will certainly investigate each of the feedback mechanisms and determine their forcing function, but the overall amplification of the CO2 effect can be determined without that. And we have done so for water vapor forcing at this point. It's the primary amplification factor. Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback. (which is understandable if you've ever compared the difference between a cloudy and clear winter night in Manitoba).
But when you talk about all these factors you seem to be thinking that water vapor, clouds, and temperature could suddenly change without cause. Changes is water vapor, clouds, and temperature are an effect of climate change, not a cause. They only provide feedback that amplifies or damps the change.
I'm going to ignore most of the rest of your post, because you don't know what hard coding is and you didn't visit the link that would explain these things.
Sounds like you've built in a loop hole there - no matter what happens, you'll blame it on "something similar that cuts sunlight". Maybe it'll be Chinese Aerosols. Maybe it'll be unique cloud formations caused by atmospheric patterns in the southern hemisphere. Maybe it'll be an explosion of high-albedo butterflies in Brazil.
Pure bullshit. Chinese Aerosols could be measured. Large cloud formations not predicted by the model that cause cooling would be a failure of the model (not to mention unlikely) that, if stable decade to decade, would refute global warming. And low albedo butterflies would be something climate change deniers would come up with in an attempt to refute anthropogenic global warming.
Can you accept the fact that your prediction, as stated, could also come true if a non-CO2 or other non-human factor that is currently unidentified has a net-warming effect?
Of course, but there is no known factor that matches the profile of climate change other than CO2 increase. If you were to find another factor you would probably have to explain how it prevents CO2 caused warming.
You know, the one where all the scientists were absolutely sure we were headed for another ice age and anyone who thought otherwise was in denial.
Given that it never happened and is something invented by denialists, it is annoying to have to repeated refute denialist trolls. Global cooling was a minority position held by some climatologists that reporters trumped up. The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. But again, you won't let facts get in the way of making these claims on the next article.
Bullshit. When stations go missing you discard all prior data from that station, unless you've got a new station within a short distance. The hockey stick has been confirmed many many times. You see why we get tired of refuting the same claims you were making 10 years ago. You are repeating things that are untrue. In other words, you are a lying troll.
but it does mean that every single 'discovery' to come out of that research should be taken with an appropriately sized dose of salt - until we actually get there and can verify all of them...
"If I can't touch it it ain't real." You do realize we'll never be able to touch the interior of Jupiter or the interior of a star, yet we understand far more about how a star works than we do about how a nerve cell works. We can model stellar interiors with great accuracy down to how sound waves propagate through them. We can compare them with surface oscillations that we measure. You bet your life on things that we understand less well than stars every day.
Compared with understanding the effects of a new drug, climatology is the model of certainty.
Yes, and those records are well below the temperature this year. The claim was that there have been droughts this bad before. I asked when that was. It wasn't in the 20s.
As a scientist, you of all people should *welcome* questions, *welcome* doubters, *welcome* deniers. If your data is as ironclad, conclusive, and unassailable as you claim, you'll defeat them handily and put this whole business to rest once and for all.
I do welcome questions. The first time we get a question and we answer it it's great. The hundredth time we get the same question from the same person it a troll. It's not a question, its an accusation of wrongdoing. We have successfully answered all of your questions and accusations yet you keep repeating them as if you didn't hear us. You're not a skeptic, you're a troll. A skeptic is convinced by evidence. No amount of evidence will convince you.
You say the degree of human responsibility is "not [sic] longer an open question" and then go on to correlate CO2 increases with temperature increases.
You didn't even go to the links I provided, did you? Of course not. You're not interested in answers. You're just interested in asking the same questions again like they haven't been answered before. It's not just correlation. It's a correlation that matches no other possible cause. It is correlation with a well known theoretical causative basis. Your claims are the equivalent of me telling you I started a fire with a match, but you not believing it because fires were started by lightning strikes before we invented matches. You throw out "water vapor" and "albedo" and assume that we either don't include them as factors or that somehow they could match the temperature increases that we've seen. Apparently you never go to web sites that discuss how climate models actually work.
But you can't make a definitive claim based on the evidence you provide any more than I can make a counterclaim by saying the same little green men that are causing the melting of the polar caps on Mars [nationalgeographic.com] are causing our planet to heat up.
don't hold out much hope for the models ever being able to predict the temperature to 4 significant figures but that is what "the experts" claim they can do. When they have a model that starts in 1980 and currently predicts through 2010, I will listen.
Nobody ever claimed a 4 significant figure temperature. Unless you're talking Kelvin. Here's the old 2000 IPCC ensemble compared with the record. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ It's seems like starting in 1980, the ensemble average is within 0.1C of all of the data sets. IPCC does underpredict sea level rise. It also overpredicts sea ice.
You'd have to be.... well... you... to think that a ice core from a single glacier near a strong warm ocean current somehow represents global temperatures.
Even if you double CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds, you haven't linked it to the CO2.
The hell you haven't. You can determine the relative importance of each forcing using a climate model that can reproduce the past temperature history. Then you use that model to predict future temperatures. The fit to prior climate tells you the temperature forcing of CO2 even if you don't understand the exact effect of increased CO2 on water vapor or cloud cover. For small temperature ranges you assume that the forcing is independent of temperature, but as you build future models you'll get an understanding of the water vapor and cloud cover components. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Essentially what you are saying is scientists are idiots that don't understand linear algebra or principle component analysis. As far as what would disprove anthropogenic global warming, right now I think the 95% no-confidence point is two solar cycles (i.e. 22 years) of flat or downward trending temperatures without causative a forcing (i.e. a caldera explosion with continued eruptions or something similar that cuts sunlight). But it won't happen. It would be faster to find another forcing that could mimic the effect of increased CO2. But you won't.
Whether human activity, changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors we should look at them all.
So now we get to choose: Are you being deliberately misleading by saying we aren't studying changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors? Or are you unable to use Google? Do you think a climate model would be able to reproduce temperature histories if if didn't include forcings that weren't anthropogenic? In order to have a climate model that can reproduce the past climate you have to include every forcing you know. But if you don't include the anthropogenic forcings you can't reproduces past climate. It just doesn't work.
I was alive then, and interested. And even my 12 year old brain could tell that global cooling was bullshit created by a magazine publisher, rather than something that large number of scientists were predicting.
Now do a search of climatology papers of the time and tell us what they were about? What? The vast majority were about global warming? You mean Time magazine created an over-sensationalized story about something that climate scientists at the time didn't believe in? And now climatologists are upset that their Atlas of the World has misstatements about how much glaciers had melted?
I think this says far more about the credibility of TIME Magazine than it does about climate science.
Yes, because "environmental scientists" write the "TIME Atlas of the World" rather than moronic reporters who can't even figure out how to use a spell checker.
I remember the 70s and into the 80s when this began, they called global cooling then.
I remember the 70s and 80s, too. Nobody believed in global cooling in the scientific community. The prediction of global warming was 80 years old in 1980, and that's what everyone in the scientific community was worried about. We just didn't have computers that could do detailed climate models at the time.
The idea that we were worried about global cooling is a common denialist tactic. By 1980 we knew that any cooling effect of aerosols was going away due to cleaner air, and that it had probably been masking effects of global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've got a web site and you can download your thesis from there, then it doesn't matter the terms because you haven't transferred exclusive electronic distribution rights to your University or a third party. Then, just to be sure, copy it to a preprint server that doesn't allow revocation of distribution rights. for example arXiv, or the equivalent in your field. At that point you've at least guaranteed distribution rights.
A .22LR isn't really up to the task. There are too many ways for it to penetrate without resulting in certain death. If you want a certain kill with a .22 you're better off with a shot to the carotid, but that'll take some time to kill you might be found before you're done. If you want to kill with a shot to the brain you need something with enough energy to cause major disruption, and that's going to be a mess.
Chemisty, on the other hand, can be pretty foolproof. You need two things, something that will put you out, and something that will take you out. They don't necessarily need to be different things. Best case is probably a series of injections, but then you need to build a machine to administer them, so you don't need to ask a person to do it.
BS. Atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds depend on more than just CO2. If you double CO2, and fail to account for all the other variables that have changed over the same period of time, you don't have anything.
Sorry, you've just failed climate science. And most other sciences as well. Imagine where we'd be if the first chemists said "we can't know anything until we know everything." If you assume that water vapor, cloud and other effects are linearly dependent on CO2 levels in a narrow range of temperatures, then from modeling the past climate you can determine the climate sensitivity to CO2 without determining the size of each of the feedback mechanisms. As time goes on you will certainly investigate each of the feedback mechanisms and determine their forcing function, but the overall amplification of the CO2 effect can be determined without that. And we have done so for water vapor forcing at this point. It's the primary amplification factor. Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback. (which is understandable if you've ever compared the difference between a cloudy and clear winter night in Manitoba).
But when you talk about all these factors you seem to be thinking that water vapor, clouds, and temperature could suddenly change without cause. Changes is water vapor, clouds, and temperature are an effect of climate change, not a cause. They only provide feedback that amplifies or damps the change.
I'm going to ignore most of the rest of your post, because you don't know what hard coding is and you didn't visit the link that would explain these things.
Sounds like you've built in a loop hole there - no matter what happens, you'll blame it on "something similar that cuts sunlight". Maybe it'll be Chinese Aerosols. Maybe it'll be unique cloud formations caused by atmospheric patterns in the southern hemisphere. Maybe it'll be an explosion of high-albedo butterflies in Brazil.
Pure bullshit. Chinese Aerosols could be measured. Large cloud formations not predicted by the model that cause cooling would be a failure of the model (not to mention unlikely) that, if stable decade to decade, would refute global warming. And low albedo butterflies would be something climate change deniers would come up with in an attempt to refute anthropogenic global warming.
Can you accept the fact that your prediction, as stated, could also come true if a non-CO2 or other non-human factor that is currently unidentified has a net-warming effect?
Of course, but there is no known factor that matches the profile of climate change other than CO2 increase. If you were to find another factor you would probably have to explain how it prevents CO2 caused warming.
Actually foresight is working quite well for global warming. Foresight was working quite well for climate scientists when you claim "global cooling" was the rage. Most of them predicted warming at that time.
You know, the one where all the scientists were absolutely sure we were headed for another ice age and anyone who thought otherwise was in denial.
Given that it never happened and is something invented by denialists, it is annoying to have to repeated refute denialist trolls. Global cooling was a minority position held by some climatologists that reporters trumped up. The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. But again, you won't let facts get in the way of making these claims on the next article.
Kinda hard to a serious a guy who has no qualifications what so ever and posts anonymously.
Bullshit. When stations go missing you discard all prior data from that station, unless you've got a new station within a short distance. The hockey stick has been confirmed many many times. You see why we get tired of refuting the same claims you were making 10 years ago. You are repeating things that are untrue. In other words, you are a lying troll.
Stop pretending your questions haven't been answered. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations. And the rest.
But that won't stop you from posting the same nonsense on the next article about climate.
but it does mean that every single 'discovery' to come out of that research should be taken with an appropriately sized dose of salt - until we actually get there and can verify all of them...
"If I can't touch it it ain't real." You do realize we'll never be able to touch the interior of Jupiter or the interior of a star, yet we understand far more about how a star works than we do about how a nerve cell works. We can model stellar interiors with great accuracy down to how sound waves propagate through them. We can compare them with surface oscillations that we measure. You bet your life on things that we understand less well than stars every day.
Compared with understanding the effects of a new drug, climatology is the model of certainty.
Yes, and those records are well below the temperature this year. The claim was that there have been droughts this bad before. I asked when that was. It wasn't in the 20s.
Fuck you. And get an education.
As a scientist, you of all people should *welcome* questions, *welcome* doubters, *welcome* deniers. If your data is as ironclad, conclusive, and unassailable as you claim, you'll defeat them handily and put this whole business to rest once and for all.
I do welcome questions. The first time we get a question and we answer it it's great. The hundredth time we get the same question from the same person it a troll. It's not a question, its an accusation of wrongdoing. We have successfully answered all of your questions and accusations yet you keep repeating them as if you didn't hear us. You're not a skeptic, you're a troll. A skeptic is convinced by evidence. No amount of evidence will convince you.
You say the degree of human responsibility is "not [sic] longer an open question" and then go on to correlate CO2 increases with temperature increases.
You didn't even go to the links I provided, did you? Of course not. You're not interested in answers. You're just interested in asking the same questions again like they haven't been answered before. It's not just correlation. It's a correlation that matches no other possible cause. It is correlation with a well known theoretical causative basis. Your claims are the equivalent of me telling you I started a fire with a match, but you not believing it because fires were started by lightning strikes before we invented matches. You throw out "water vapor" and "albedo" and assume that we either don't include them as factors or that somehow they could match the temperature increases that we've seen. Apparently you never go to web sites that discuss how climate models actually work.
But you can't make a definitive claim based on the evidence you provide any more than I can make a counterclaim by saying the same little green men that are causing the melting of the polar caps on Mars [nationalgeographic.com] are causing our planet to heat up.
Actually, we've answered that stupid troll question as well. A freaking long time ago. Yet, as I said, you'll just post it again. Because no answers are good enough to a troll.
They favor stronger property rights than is typically* allowed in Western courts.
The problem is that air and water aren't property, even in Libertarian land.
don't hold out much hope for the models ever being able to predict the temperature to 4 significant figures but that is what "the experts" claim they can do. When they have a model that starts in 1980 and currently predicts through 2010, I will listen.
Nobody ever claimed a 4 significant figure temperature. Unless you're talking Kelvin. Here's the old 2000 IPCC ensemble compared with the record. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/ It's seems like starting in 1980, the ensemble average is within 0.1C of all of the data sets. IPCC does underpredict sea level rise. It also overpredicts sea ice.
You'd have to be.... well... you... to think that a ice core from a single glacier near a strong warm ocean current somehow represents global temperatures.
Even if you double CO2, and observe what has happened to atmospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds, you haven't linked it to the CO2.
The hell you haven't. You can determine the relative importance of each forcing using a climate model that can reproduce the past temperature history. Then you use that model to predict future temperatures. The fit to prior climate tells you the temperature forcing of CO2 even if you don't understand the exact effect of increased CO2 on water vapor or cloud cover. For small temperature ranges you assume that the forcing is independent of temperature, but as you build future models you'll get an understanding of the water vapor and cloud cover components. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Essentially what you are saying is scientists are idiots that don't understand linear algebra or principle component analysis. As far as what would disprove anthropogenic global warming, right now I think the 95% no-confidence point is two solar cycles (i.e. 22 years) of flat or downward trending temperatures without causative a forcing (i.e. a caldera explosion with continued eruptions or something similar that cuts sunlight). But it won't happen. It would be faster to find another forcing that could mimic the effect of increased CO2. But you won't.
Now lets see if you can figure out why they are different.
Real scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. However the degree of human responsibility is an open question.
This is what the most damaging of the denialists do. Sow doubt. Pretend the field has not avanced in 20 years. The degree of human responsibility is not longer an open question and hasn't been for quite some time. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3C+-1C. Humans are providing essentially all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere
Whether human activity, changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors we should look at them all.
So now we get to choose: Are you being deliberately misleading by saying we aren't studying changes in solar activity and other things are minor or significant contributors? Or are you unable to use Google? Do you think a climate model would be able to reproduce temperature histories if if didn't include forcings that weren't anthropogenic? In order to have a climate model that can reproduce the past climate you have to include every forcing you know. But if you don't include the anthropogenic forcings you can't reproduces past climate. It just doesn't work.
Maybe you just don't care to notice the understatements. This graph shows sea level rise vs the IPCC predictions.
I was alive then, and interested. And even my 12 year old brain could tell that global cooling was bullshit created by a magazine publisher, rather than something that large number of scientists were predicting.
Now do a search of climatology papers of the time and tell us what they were about? What? The vast majority were about global warming? You mean Time magazine created an over-sensationalized story about something that climate scientists at the time didn't believe in? And now climatologists are upset that their Atlas of the World has misstatements about how much glaciers had melted?
I think this says far more about the credibility of TIME Magazine than it does about climate science.
Wrong on all counts. You really do need to find arguments that haven't been refuted. 1998 was a warm outlier year due to El Nino, 2010 was warmer without a strong El Nino, and the trend in the 11 year moving average has stayed strongly positive. But you don't want to hear real facts that might get in the way of what you want to believe.
Yes, because "environmental scientists" write the "TIME Atlas of the World" rather than moronic reporters who can't even figure out how to use a spell checker.
I remember the 70s and into the 80s when this began, they called global cooling then.
I remember the 70s and 80s, too. Nobody believed in global cooling in the scientific community. The prediction of global warming was 80 years old in 1980, and that's what everyone in the scientific community was worried about. We just didn't have computers that could do detailed climate models at the time.
The idea that we were worried about global cooling is a common denialist tactic. By 1980 we knew that any cooling effect of aerosols was going away due to cleaner air, and that it had probably been masking effects of global warming.
More bullshit claims about bias from one of the most biased posters here: Pino Grigio. Who can't even spell Pinot Grigio.
If the dropped stations had been kept, the temperature determinations would have been higher, not lower
You really have to start picking claims that aren't so trivially refuted.