If you read any of the literature, you'd know that this is the reference-- the Manabe and Wetherald paper was the first to fully model the co-effect of carbon dioxide and humidity in a convective atmosphere, and is the one pretty much everybody references.
Manabe was the grandfather of global circulation models-- pretty much all the models that exist today can be traced back to his work. This wasn't a "random" paper-- this was the paper.
Wow, in 1967 scientists predicted global warming, with a study that half a century later has proven to be largely accurate...
BUT, did that 1967 take into account all the dramatic changes that have been under-taken since 1967 to shrink the world's carbon footprint?
No. If you'd read the article, not just the summary, you'd see that the paper did not try to predict how much carbon dioxide would be produced. It predicted if this much carbon dioxide is produced, then this much warming would occur.
The comparison of prediction to experiment-- if you'd read the article you'd know this-- was to look at how much carbon dioxide actually was put in the atmosphere, and compare the warming to the amount predicted for that amount of carbon dioxide.
The theory turns out to be a remarkably good match to the data. Good work, Manabe and Wetherald.
If you collect every predictive scientific paper published this year and fast-forward 50 years, a proportion of them will turn out to be correct, simply due to sheer dumb luck.
This just happens to be the first one, and the one in all of the textbooks (even the textbooks not about global warming-- textbooks about atmospheric light scattering, for example), and the one that all the climate scientists acknowledge as the beginning of accurate climate models.
This is not a paper that was picked up in retrospect, because it happened to be right-- this is the paper the started the field.
However, there is no way of knowing now, in 2017, which ones will be correct.
Bullshit. That's not how science is done. Scientists show their work and lay out their calculations and the reasons, and other scientists replicate their work (well, physical scientists do. I don't know about social scientists). "Scientists make random predictions and some of them are right" is not how science is done
These arguments always tend to revolve around whether global warming is real or not. That is not the right question.
Let us assume that global warming is real. The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.
Yes, but that is a different question.
The relentless assault on climate science and on climate scientists-- using words like "hoax" "scam" and "fraud" in referring both to the science and the scientists-- is still continuing. But now the attack has forked, with attacks on the scientists continuing, but now another branch of the attack saying "well, but maybe warming is good."
I'd pay more attention to them if they weren't pretty much the same people (and funded by the same oil companies) who were saying "climate science is a hoax and climate scientists should be put in jail."
I notice you don't sign your name, Mr. Anonymous Coward. So, to be clear: do you accept the evidence that global warming is real, and anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the major contributor? Or are you just doing a new attack on a new front?
Well, I gave the name of the study. That might have been a start.
The largest (or at least longest lasting) of the several projects was originally the Low Cost silicon Solar Array project, LSSA: https://www.google.com/search?...
When they were kids, they were the generation that would rather own Beany Babies than stocks. Since the bottom dropped out of the Beany Baby bubble, they are looking for something else.
Think about it... When the 1% deletes anything written by anyone else, then everything will be written by the 1%.
Yep. That's the problem. There are a small number of editors who believe that they personally own the articles they wrote, and will revert any changes made by anybody else. And, since they do this deletion a lot, they are very good with the Wikipedia bureaucracy and know exactly how far they can go without getting counted as "edit warring"-- and how to entice novice editors into breaking one of Wikipedia's invisible rules and getting banned.
The article says : "As detailed in a 2013 feature in the MIT Technology Review, the decline of active editors with more than 10 edits under their belt has been attributed to the increasingly bureaucratic nature of the editing process. The semi-automation and stricter editing process was initially launched as a way to combat vandalism on Wikipedia pages. Although the new protocols did result in a decrease in vandalism, it also resulted in a steep drop off of new editors that stayed 2 months after their first edit."
No. It's not the semi-automation, it's the bureaucracy being used by the "deletionists" who don't want you-- if you fail to follow obscure rules when responding to the asshole who deletes the stuff you just wrote, you will be banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Lavarand was a hardware random number generator designed by Silicon Graphics that worked by taking pictures of the patterns made by the floating material in lava lamps, extracting random data from the pictures, and using the result to seed a pseudorandom number generator.[1] Although the secondary part of the random number generation uses a pseudorandom number generator, the full process essentially qualifies as a "true" random number generator due to the random seed that is used. However, its applicability is limited by its low bandwidth.
If you read the article: https://gizmodo.com/how-facebo...
Facebook is constructing a "shadow profile" of you, taken from other people sharing information.
Here are some of the cited links:
http://mashable.com/2013/06/26/facebook-shadow-profiles/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-profiles-leak-in-bug/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/firm-facebooks-shadow-profiles-are-frightening-dossiers-on-everyone/
https://splinternews.com/facebook-recommended-that-this-psychiatrists-patients-f-1793861472
And lowering poly cost was, of course, one of the many technical achievements of the old DOE program.
And your proof of this is what?
I can only repeat what I just said: The fact that you don't seem to know about the decades-long ERDA and DOE programs doesn't mean that they didn't exist
...
There aren't many studies or reports on solar/poly prior to the ~2000s,
WHAT?????
Oh, I see. You mean "I don't know about anything that happened before Google, so it doesn't exist."
I can only repeat what I just said: The fact that you don't seem to know about the decades-long ERDA and DOE programs doesn't mean that they didn't exist
At our office we scrap things all the time. That doesn't mean we destroy it. We usually put it into storage in case it ever gets revived.
In this particular case, reading the actual article (and not just the summary), the U.S. Congress was annoyed at the money spent on keeping the satellilte in storage, and had it destroyed. So, no, in this case, scrapped did mean destroyed.
Reading the old articles, though, nobody was discussing sea ice, which is just one of the least important things the satellite was to measure-- primarily it was a Defense weather satellite (weather turns out to be very important to the Department of Defence-- particularly to the Navy. Who knew?)
I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from that graph, though. Two data points lying below the extrapolated trend line is not enough to reliably show an inflexion point-- particularly since the source you link doesn't plot data points other the dots representing 2014, 2015, and 2016, only a curve. But it doesn't look like the change in slope is significantly different from the noise in the curve (notice the grey area, which I assume is error bar.)
In any case, it's a bit unrealistic to criticize the scenarios used in the 4th IPCC report for not incorporating a purported change in slope in 2015-3016, since it was published in 2007,
I rarely return anything, pretty much only if it arrives broken. It seems shocking to me that a full third of all purchases get returned online.
I'd believe it-- I'd even believe that a third of all stuff bought online arrives broken, or was broken in the first place, or was substantially different from the description-- I've had some bad experiences. But I also know some people who use the "free return" policies as a way to examine stuff to decide whether they want to buy it.
Even that 9% for in-store seems crazy high. Are there people who just buy stuff and return it all day long?
Now, that does seem a bit high. I almost never return stuff I bought, but that's because if I buy it in a real store, I look at it carefully before buying.
Well, on a real-world store you can look at stuff before you buy it-- for the most part, you can pick up the very same object that you will later own. With an online store, you're buying something you've never seen.
Also, a lot of online stores sell broken crap-- possibly stuff that previous customers had returned that they're still trying to get rid of.
I notice you don't bother to cite any data supporting your claim of a trend of "constant or declining carbon emissions".
Look, we have established that IPCC forecasts involve economic guesses about the future, and so are not just based on "basic science"; you have admitted that now. Stop trying to derail the discussion by sharpshooting on side issues. If the answer to the question interests you, go look up the data yourself and work through the scenarios.
Translation: I can't cite any data because I don't have any data.
I notice you don't bother to cite any data supporting your claim of a trend of "constant or declining carbon emissions". Unless you have some data showing such a trend-- and a trend long enough to be meaningful-- I stand by my statement.
If you're quibbiling, Manabe and Wetherald's calculated climate sensitivity was 2.4, not 2.0. [...] (with your rounding of "2.4" down to "2" corrected)
I didn't round, that's what the paper says: "According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C". You really need to read the paper, instead of random blog posts.
I'd actually checked the number out of a textbook that I happen to have near my desk (Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, 1980, if it matters-- my usual go-to book on atmospheric light scattering) instead of digging up the original paper. But turns out it's not hard to dig up the paper, it is on the web several places, so it's easy enough to check: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ThermalEqu.pdf
And, how about that?-- you're almost right. "About 2C" is indeed what is says... in the abstract.
In the body of the paper, though, they give the calculated result to more than one figure. Table 4 and table 5 shows their calculated results. The increase from 300 to 600 gives an effect of 2.36C (for fixed relative humidity and "average cloudiness;" slightly higher for clear skies).
So, I withdraw my statement that you rounded their result down. In fact, it wasn't you: they did the rounding. Nevertheless: the number was 2.36 (but the parts after the decimal point are probably not significant.)
For what it's worth, their 1975 paper, calculating with a three-dimensional model instead of the 1967 2D model (which means that they have both oceans and continents, instead of an average of ocean and continent), came up with 2.39 degrees per doubling-- nearly the same.
I don't see much real information in the rest of your post, you're arguing your opinion and policy, and not significantly disputing facts. You're saying you don't like the models because you don't understand the feedbacks, but you're more or less ok with the results to the first significant figure, although to a second significant figure you prefer a number slightly on the lower side but still within the error bars, but you think that existing societal trends will reduce CO2 emissions anyway so the predicted warming will be lower than the highest value of the IPCC scenarios (which is what the IPCC also seems to thing: that is the high case.)
OK. I'm not sure that there's enough in that to bother arguing with.
I will, however, quibble with two points:
There is nothing "paradoxical" about it; irrational climate change deniers are largely a figment of your imagination.
No, irrational climate change deniers are certainly out there, and say all sorts of bizarre things. However, you have clearly shown that you are not an "irrational climate change denier," since you're arguing with numbers based on the real science. That is neither irrational, nor even being a "climate change denier" of any kind. There doesn't seem to be a quick category nam
It has been proven that it [meaning the DNC hack] was a leak and not a hack.
Nope. One researcher claimed that it was a leak and not a hack, but the evidence to show that was weak. The Nation (which was the first mainstream outlet to publish those charges first) later published a second article pointing out the weaknesses in the case made by the first article: https://www.thenation.com/arti...
The files where copied locally using cp -R based on the time and date stamps.
It was a 25MB per second copy(i.e. USB2.0).
So, what the metadata showed was that at some point the data was copied at 25MBits/second. What wasn't shown, however, was at what stage in the hack this transfer speed happened. The files could have been stolen off a server at one speed, but then copied to another file at a higher speed sometime before being released. 25 MBits/second isn't necessarily the speed at which they were initially copied.
also, note that this is MegaBITS per second, not bytes. In fact, high speed internet connections do reach and exceed this speed, so the analysis doesn't even particularly show that the files weren't stolen across an internet connection.
So, bottom line, the metadata analysis, in this case, was interesting but didn't really prove anything, and most particularly, didn't show that the leak was internal rather than external.
But that's irrelevant: the question what if current trends continue is still an interesting one to ask, even if the answer is "current trends won't continue."
But, by the way, why should "current trends continue" be "economically utterly implausible"? It's not economically implausible now, why does it suddenly switch to being implausible?
Because the price of fossil fuels goes up as they are exhausted
Historical data shows that fossil fuels don't get exhausted, because new supplies are found.
and the price of carbon neutral sources are steadily falling. Not taking that into account is absurd.
And that's why they also looked at the effect of substitution of other sources.
Basically, you took a whole array of different scenarios put forth by IPCC to look at the effect of all sorts of different possible things that could happen, you took the most extreme one, and you say "look at their prediction! It is absurd!". That wasn't their "prediction". That was their analysis "here is the result if this one particular scenario takes place."
I gave this as an example of their use of economic predictions; they use economic predictions in all their analyses, as well as predictions about the effects of government policies. Their other scenarios suffer from analogous problems, it's just not worth going through every one of them to get my main point across, namely that their conclusions are not just rooted in "basic physics" but require lots of other assumptions that are far more speculative and not rooted in any science.
My objection stands. They gave a wide variety of different possible scenarios but you chose to point out only the most extreme what-if scenario and ignore the fact that this was only one of many different scenarios. If they hadn't looked at a "what if current trends continue" scenario, then that would have been dishonest.
As you pointed out very clearly in your previous post, the current IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity, 3 plus or minus 1.5 degrees per doubling, is pretty much identical to the one-dimensional constant-humidity model of Manabe and Wetherald.
No, their most likely prediction of 3C is not the same as 2C, it's 50% larger.
If you're quibbiling, Manabe and Wetherald's calculated climate sensitivity was 2.4, not 2.0. That is 25%, not 50%. And within error bounds of the current best estimate. You do know about error bounds? This is how science works.
I'm annoyed at people attacking the science because they don't like proposed policies
Stop pretending that there is something like "the science". People attack some of the science in the report because some of the science is in fact weak. Scientific conclusions and arguments are only as strong as the weakest link, that's why many people consider the overall conclusion of the report to be weak even if they (like me) agree that parts of it are strong.
You've been asserting that some of the science is weak, but you haven't shown that-- you've just said it over and over again, on the assumption that repeating something enough times is as good as actual evidence.
Nevertheless, paradoxically, you seem to actually agree with the conclusions of the report, since (with your rounding of "2.4" down to "2" corrected), you quote a climate sensitivity within the error bars of the current best estimate.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read any of the literature, you'd know that this is the reference-- the Manabe and Wetherald paper was the first to fully model the co-effect of carbon dioxide and humidity in a convective atmosphere, and is the one pretty much everybody references.
Here https://www.carbonbrief.org/pr... for example, or here https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Manabe was the grandfather of global circulation models-- pretty much all the models that exist today can be traced back to his work. This wasn't a "random" paper-- this was the paper.
Wow, in 1967 scientists predicted global warming, with a study that half a century later has proven to be largely accurate...
BUT, did that 1967 take into account all the dramatic changes that have been under-taken since 1967 to shrink the world's carbon footprint?
No. If you'd read the article, not just the summary, you'd see that the paper did not try to predict how much carbon dioxide would be produced. It predicted if this much carbon dioxide is produced, then this much warming would occur.
The comparison of prediction to experiment-- if you'd read the article you'd know this-- was to look at how much carbon dioxide actually was put in the atmosphere, and compare the warming to the amount predicted for that amount of carbon dioxide.
The theory turns out to be a remarkably good match to the data. Good work, Manabe and Wetherald.
Yeah, that never happened.
"Yeah, that never happened" is correct! Anonymous Coward says something accurate for a change.
There was no scientific consensus nor prediction by scientists that the Earth was "entering a global cooling phase."
Citations: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/"
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/
If you collect every predictive scientific paper published this year and fast-forward 50 years, a proportion of them will turn out to be correct, simply due to sheer dumb luck.
This just happens to be the first one, and the one in all of the textbooks (even the textbooks not about global warming-- textbooks about atmospheric light scattering, for example), and the one that all the climate scientists acknowledge as the beginning of accurate climate models.
This is not a paper that was picked up in retrospect, because it happened to be right-- this is the paper the started the field.
However, there is no way of knowing now, in 2017, which ones will be correct.
Bullshit. That's not how science is done. Scientists show their work and lay out their calculations and the reasons, and other scientists replicate their work (well, physical scientists do. I don't know about social scientists). "Scientists make random predictions and some of them are right" is not how science is done
These arguments always tend to revolve around whether global warming is real or not. That is not the right question.
Let us assume that global warming is real. The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.
Yes, but that is a different question.
The relentless assault on climate science and on climate scientists-- using words like "hoax" "scam" and "fraud" in referring both to the science and the scientists-- is still continuing. But now the attack has forked, with attacks on the scientists continuing, but now another branch of the attack saying "well, but maybe warming is good."
I'd pay more attention to them if they weren't pretty much the same people (and funded by the same oil companies) who were saying "climate science is a hoax and climate scientists should be put in jail."
I notice you don't sign your name, Mr. Anonymous Coward. So, to be clear: do you accept the evidence that global warming is real, and anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the major contributor? Or are you just doing a new attack on a new front?
Well, I gave the name of the study. That might have been a start.
The largest (or at least longest lasting) of the several projects was originally the Low Cost silicon Solar Array project, LSSA: https://www.google.com/search?...
The project name was changed to LSA, the Low-Cost Solar Array project: https://www.google.com/search?...
and then renamed again to FSA, the Flat-plate Solar Array project: https://www.google.com/search?...
Asking for a friend. That's it, a friend.
At least this happened with the new Merlin Series 5 redesign, scheduled for flight next year.
Exactly. That's important-- this is the next generation engine, not the one currently flying.
Some alternate sources, some with more information:
https://www.space.com/38712-spacex-rocket-engine-test-explosion.html
https://www.geekwire.com/2017/next-generation-spacex-rocket-engine-goes-flames-texas-test/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/an-experimental-spacex-rocket-engine-has-exploded-in-texas/
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
When they were kids, they were the generation that would rather own Beany Babies than stocks. Since the bottom dropped out of the Beany Baby bubble, they are looking for something else.
Think about it... When the 1% deletes anything written by anyone else, then everything will be written by the 1%.
Yep. That's the problem. There are a small number of editors who believe that they personally own the articles they wrote, and will revert any changes made by anybody else. And, since they do this deletion a lot, they are very good with the Wikipedia bureaucracy and know exactly how far they can go without getting counted as "edit warring"-- and how to entice novice editors into breaking one of Wikipedia's invisible rules and getting banned.
The article says : "As detailed in a 2013 feature in the MIT Technology Review, the decline of active editors with more than 10 edits under their belt has been attributed to the increasingly bureaucratic nature of the editing process. The semi-automation and stricter editing process was initially launched as a way to combat vandalism on Wikipedia pages. Although the new protocols did result in a decrease in vandalism, it also resulted in a steep drop off of new editors that stayed 2 months after their first edit."
No. It's not the semi-automation, it's the bureaucracy being used by the "deletionists" who don't want you-- if you fail to follow obscure rules when responding to the asshole who deletes the stuff you just wrote, you will be banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Lavarand was a hardware random number generator designed by Silicon Graphics that worked by taking pictures of the patterns made by the floating material in lava lamps, extracting random data from the pictures, and using the result to seed a pseudorandom number generator.[1] Although the secondary part of the random number generation uses a pseudorandom number generator, the full process essentially qualifies as a "true" random number generator due to the random seed that is used. However, its applicability is limited by its low bandwidth.
Here are some of the cited links:
http://mashable.com/2013/06/26/facebook-shadow-profiles/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-profiles-leak-in-bug/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/firm-facebooks-shadow-profiles-are-frightening-dossiers-on-everyone/
https://splinternews.com/facebook-recommended-that-this-psychiatrists-patients-f-1793861472
And your proof of this is what?
I can only repeat what I just said: The fact that you don't seem to know about the decades-long ERDA and DOE programs doesn't mean that they didn't exist
...
There aren't many studies or reports on solar/poly prior to the ~2000s,
WHAT?????
Oh, I see. You mean "I don't know about anything that happened before Google, so it doesn't exist."
I can only repeat what I just said: The fact that you don't seem to know about the decades-long ERDA and DOE programs doesn't mean that they didn't exist
At our office we scrap things all the time. That doesn't mean we destroy it. We usually put it into storage in case it ever gets revived.
In this particular case, reading the actual article (and not just the summary), the U.S. Congress was annoyed at the money spent on keeping the satellilte in storage, and had it destroyed. So, no, in this case, scrapped did mean destroyed.
Reading the old articles, though, nobody was discussing sea ice, which is just one of the least important things the satellite was to measure-- primarily it was a Defense weather satellite (weather turns out to be very important to the Department of Defence-- particularly to the Navy. Who knew?)
My opinion differs.
In answer to the question in the headling, presumably he's putting it into Blue Origin. Because that's what he said he would do.
I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from that graph, though. Two data points lying below the extrapolated trend line is not enough to reliably show an inflexion point-- particularly since the source you link doesn't plot data points other the dots representing 2014, 2015, and 2016, only a curve. But it doesn't look like the change in slope is significantly different from the noise in the curve (notice the grey area, which I assume is error bar.)
In any case, it's a bit unrealistic to criticize the scenarios used in the 4th IPCC report for not incorporating a purported change in slope in 2015-3016, since it was published in 2007,
I rarely return anything, pretty much only if it arrives broken. It seems shocking to me that a full third of all purchases get returned online.
I'd believe it-- I'd even believe that a third of all stuff bought online arrives broken, or was broken in the first place, or was substantially different from the description-- I've had some bad experiences. But I also know some people who use the "free return" policies as a way to examine stuff to decide whether they want to buy it.
Even that 9% for in-store seems crazy high. Are there people who just buy stuff and return it all day long?
Now, that does seem a bit high. I almost never return stuff I bought, but that's because if I buy it in a real store, I look at it carefully before buying.
Also, a lot of online stores sell broken crap-- possibly stuff that previous customers had returned that they're still trying to get rid of.
Look, we have established that IPCC forecasts involve economic guesses about the future, and so are not just based on "basic science"; you have admitted that now. Stop trying to derail the discussion by sharpshooting on side issues. If the answer to the question interests you, go look up the data yourself and work through the scenarios.
Translation: I can't cite any data because I don't have any data.
ever since audiobooks were invented, my commute has been the high point of my day.
That solution is simple. Fire them. Promote good workers, fire bad; same as it's always been.
From my experience, management very rarely knows which workers are good and which are bad.
Your graph cuts off in 2010.
I notice you don't bother to cite any data supporting your claim of a trend of "constant or declining carbon emissions". Unless you have some data showing such a trend-- and a trend long enough to be meaningful-- I stand by my statement.
I didn't round, that's what the paper says: "According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C". You really need to read the paper, instead of random blog posts.
I'd actually checked the number out of a textbook that I happen to have near my desk (Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, 1980, if it matters-- my usual go-to book on atmospheric light scattering) instead of digging up the original paper. But turns out it's not hard to dig up the paper, it is on the web several places, so it's easy enough to check: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ThermalEqu.pdf
And, how about that?-- you're almost right. "About 2C" is indeed what is says... in the abstract.
In the body of the paper, though, they give the calculated result to more than one figure. Table 4 and table 5 shows their calculated results. The increase from 300 to 600 gives an effect of 2.36C (for fixed relative humidity and "average cloudiness;" slightly higher for clear skies).
So, I withdraw my statement that you rounded their result down. In fact, it wasn't you: they did the rounding. Nevertheless: the number was 2.36 (but the parts after the decimal point are probably not significant.)
For what it's worth, their 1975 paper, calculating with a three-dimensional model instead of the 1967 2D model (which means that they have both oceans and continents, instead of an average of ocean and continent), came up with 2.39 degrees per doubling-- nearly the same.
I don't see much real information in the rest of your post, you're arguing your opinion and policy, and not significantly disputing facts. You're saying you don't like the models because you don't understand the feedbacks, but you're more or less ok with the results to the first significant figure, although to a second significant figure you prefer a number slightly on the lower side but still within the error bars, but you think that existing societal trends will reduce CO2 emissions anyway so the predicted warming will be lower than the highest value of the IPCC scenarios (which is what the IPCC also seems to thing: that is the high case.)
OK. I'm not sure that there's enough in that to bother arguing with.
I will, however, quibble with two points:
There is nothing "paradoxical" about it; irrational climate change deniers are largely a figment of your imagination.
No, irrational climate change deniers are certainly out there, and say all sorts of bizarre things. However, you have clearly shown that you are not an "irrational climate change denier," since you're arguing with numbers based on the real science. That is neither irrational, nor even being a "climate change denier" of any kind. There doesn't seem to be a quick category nam
It has been proven that it [meaning the DNC hack] was a leak and not a hack.
Nope. One researcher claimed that it was a leak and not a hack, but the evidence to show that was weak. The Nation (which was the first mainstream outlet to publish those charges first) later published a second article pointing out the weaknesses in the case made by the first article: https://www.thenation.com/arti...
The files where copied locally using cp -R based on the time and date stamps. It was a 25MB per second copy(i.e. USB2.0).
So, what the metadata showed was that at some point the data was copied at 25MBits/second. What wasn't shown, however, was at what stage in the hack this transfer speed happened. The files could have been stolen off a server at one speed, but then copied to another file at a higher speed sometime before being released. 25 MBits/second isn't necessarily the speed at which they were initially copied.
also, note that this is MegaBITS per second, not bytes. In fact, high speed internet connections do reach and exceed this speed, so the analysis doesn't even particularly show that the files weren't stolen across an internet connection.
So, bottom line, the metadata analysis, in this case, was interesting but didn't really prove anything, and most particularly, didn't show that the leak was internal rather than external.
20th century patterns aren't "current trends". Current trends suggest constant or declining carbon emissions.
The data shows otherwise: http://www.energytrendsinsider...
But that's irrelevant: the question what if current trends continue is still an interesting one to ask, even if the answer is "current trends won't continue."
Because the price of fossil fuels goes up as they are exhausted
Historical data shows that fossil fuels don't get exhausted, because new supplies are found.
and the price of carbon neutral sources are steadily falling. Not taking that into account is absurd.
And that's why they also looked at the effect of substitution of other sources.
I gave this as an example of their use of economic predictions; they use economic predictions in all their analyses, as well as predictions about the effects of government policies. Their other scenarios suffer from analogous problems, it's just not worth going through every one of them to get my main point across, namely that their conclusions are not just rooted in "basic physics" but require lots of other assumptions that are far more speculative and not rooted in any science.
My objection stands. They gave a wide variety of different possible scenarios but you chose to point out only the most extreme what-if scenario and ignore the fact that this was only one of many different scenarios. If they hadn't looked at a "what if current trends continue" scenario, then that would have been dishonest.
No, their most likely prediction of 3C is not the same as 2C, it's 50% larger.
If you're quibbiling, Manabe and Wetherald's calculated climate sensitivity was 2.4, not 2.0. That is 25%, not 50%. And within error bounds of the current best estimate. You do know about error bounds? This is how science works.
Stop pretending that there is something like "the science". People attack some of the science in the report because some of the science is in fact weak. Scientific conclusions and arguments are only as strong as the weakest link, that's why many people consider the overall conclusion of the report to be weak even if they (like me) agree that parts of it are strong.
You've been asserting that some of the science is weak, but you haven't shown that-- you've just said it over and over again, on the assumption that repeating something enough times is as good as actual evidence.
Nevertheless, paradoxically, you seem to actually agree with the conclusions of the report, since (with your rounding of "2.4" down to "2" corrected), you quote a climate sensitivity within the error bars of the current best estimate.