The US exerts their political influence on other countries like the UK, France, Germany, and so many others to engage in surveillance of innocent citizens.
You ignored my comment, or you lacked the ability to understand it. My guess is you are mainly copy-pasting stuff you find on realclimate or something.
Your links actually support my point, read what I wrote again.
Nah, there are plenty of papers saying the same thing, the scientific community has moved on to trying to figure out why. Here's one example, quote:
"Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution."
It's not clear why the models are wrong, but it's clear they're having problems. Here's another example, quote:
"The slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s is not evident in the multi-model ensemble average of traditional climate change projection simulations"
TBH though, it was kind of silly to think the models would be particularly accurate to begin with, they've always been the weakest section of the IPCC report (WG1)
You don't need to learn to code, but you do need to learn to think clearly and logically.
Whether you do that by learning to program, or by going through lawschool, or some other method, is up to you: but I would rather do it by learning to program.
The book in my sig makes some attempt to teach the clear, logical mindset.
The post you asked about was talking about sea rise, not temperature.
Sea temperature is a lot less accurate than the terrestrial record, and often involved dropping a bucket in the sea, pulling out water, and sticking a thermometer in.
I'm not sure this is really supported by the article. The first paragraph says,
Despite the subject’s reputation, and the fact that schools treat it like the class where fun goes to die, kids are more excited about science, on average, than math, English and social studies, according to a new report.
So science classes must be doing something right.
Seriously though, school isn't entertainment. If kids want to enjoy themselves, they should be taught the pleasure of learning something new.
The managers I've met lately are woefully short on relevant people skills (not networking and leadership, but coaching and understanding what the people in your team are made of)
That's kind of true, with the industry expanding, it's kind of easy to become a manager, and companies don't provide relevant training.
Encrypted signals will still require framing, will still be likely to be bandwidth limited, and so will not appear truly natural, even if we can never break the code.
It's kind of cool, actually. You drop a tube into the ocean moderately deep, so the water can only enter through the bottom of the tube. That smooths out all the wave motion, so the surface of the water in the tube is stationary, and easily measured.
Wrong. The reputable models from the 80's and 90's (those that had a good level of peer-review and were based on sound assumptions) quite accurately predicted our current warming rate. The reason you don't know this is because you probably derive most of your 'information' from sources that actually don't deal in science.
Here's science man, read it and change your opinion, or you're anti-science.
We know that CO2 by itself increases the earth's temperature by about.9 degrees for a doubling of CO2. That much is fairly well established science.
The computer models additionally add feedbacks, that make the predicted increase much more severe (up to as much as 10 degrees for a doubling of CO2). These feedbacks have much poorer support scientifically.
It matches the paper. Here are some sentences from the paper I had to read several times before understanding:
* Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.
* Hegerl et al (2004) found a detectable wettening signal in modelled heavy precipitation events at Northern high latitudes associated with anthropogenic influences on the climate.
* However, in North Asia (figure 2(c)), the TAE values are more similar across the temperature and precipitation indices.
* However, these studies did not take into account that the climate has changed over recent decades or implicitly assumed that society is fully adapted to the present-day climate.
Good thing that writing skill isn't necessary to do correct science.
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction.
And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
If you believe that, then it might make you feel good to know that this study was based entirely on computer climate models.
Here's a better article.
He looks like a really cool guy. Currently a Sophomore at a university.
Participated in math olympiads and such since he was young. Seems like someone I would like to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
The US exerts their political influence on other countries like the UK, France, Germany, and so many others to engage in surveillance of innocent citizens.
Troll is obvious troll.
You ignored my comment, or you lacked the ability to understand it. My guess is you are mainly copy-pasting stuff you find on realclimate or something.
Your links actually support my point, read what I wrote again.
"Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution."
It's not clear why the models are wrong, but it's clear they're having problems. Here's another example, quote:
"The slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s is not evident in the multi-model ensemble average of traditional climate change projection simulations"
TBH though, it was kind of silly to think the models would be particularly accurate to begin with, they've always been the weakest section of the IPCC report (WG1)
You don't need to learn to code, but you do need to learn to think clearly and logically.
Whether you do that by learning to program, or by going through lawschool, or some other method, is up to you: but I would rather do it by learning to program.
The book in my sig makes some attempt to teach the clear, logical mindset.
The post you asked about was talking about sea rise, not temperature.
Sea temperature is a lot less accurate than the terrestrial record, and often involved dropping a bucket in the sea, pulling out water, and sticking a thermometer in.
Oh? What are you planning?
Yeah, it's looking a little too cloudy in these parts for a good viewing. :(
Despite the subject’s reputation, and the fact that schools treat it like the class where fun goes to die, kids are more excited about science, on average, than math, English and social studies, according to a new report.
So science classes must be doing something right.
Seriously though, school isn't entertainment. If kids want to enjoy themselves, they should be taught the pleasure of learning something new.
This lament is probably relevant.
As a parent, it is MY choice. I let my kids play with my iPad in the backseat, so they will shutup and let me drive
Sounds like they are choosing more than you think.
The managers I've met lately are woefully short on relevant people skills (not networking and leadership, but coaching and understanding what the people in your team are made of)
That's kind of true, with the industry expanding, it's kind of easy to become a manager, and companies don't provide relevant training.
According to this, the power source will most likely will be natural gas.
Models are not evidence. Measurements are evidence, models are an attempt to draw conclusions from evidence.
Well said.
Encrypted signals will still require framing, will still be likely to be bandwidth limited, and so will not appear truly natural, even if we can never break the code.
That's a good point.
It's kind of cool, actually. You drop a tube into the ocean moderately deep, so the water can only enter through the bottom of the tube. That smooths out all the wave motion, so the surface of the water in the tube is stationary, and easily measured.
That's cool, what article does that chart come from?
Wrong. The reputable models from the 80's and 90's (those that had a good level of peer-review and were based on sound assumptions) quite accurately predicted our current warming rate. The reason you don't know this is because you probably derive most of your 'information' from sources that actually don't deal in science.
Here's science man, read it and change your opinion, or you're anti-science.
.9 degrees for a doubling of CO2. That much is fairly well established science.
We know that CO2 by itself increases the earth's temperature by about
The computer models additionally add feedbacks, that make the predicted increase much more severe (up to as much as 10 degrees for a doubling of CO2). These feedbacks have much poorer support scientifically.
It matches the paper. Here are some sentences from the paper I had to read several times before understanding:
* Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.
* Hegerl et al (2004) found a detectable wettening signal in modelled heavy precipitation events at Northern high latitudes associated with anthropogenic influences on the climate.
* However, in North Asia (figure 2(c)), the TAE values are more similar across the temperature and precipitation indices.
* However, these studies did not take into account that the climate has changed over recent decades or implicitly assumed that society is fully adapted to the present-day climate.
Good thing that writing skill isn't necessary to do correct science.
...but explanations are based on accepted consensus of experts. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.. etc.
That's a really lousy example to choose.
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction. And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
If you believe that, then it might make you feel good to know that this study was based entirely on computer climate models.
The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an effect immediately.
The only question remaining is how sensitive your tools are.
Yeah, it should be PWh, not kWh. My mistake
Here is how to end all arguments. It does not matter the details. Pollution sucks. That is it.
That's a stupid argument. In the wrong situation, water is pollution. Too much oxygen is bad for you.
The fundamental discussion about AGW is how much CO2 is too much. We certainly don't want to get rid of it all, for many reasons.
For comparison, here is a chart of deaths per kwh of electricity generated.
Coal – U.S. 15,000
Hydro 1,400
Solar (rooftop) 440
Nuclear – global average 90
Here's a better article.
He looks like a really cool guy. Currently a Sophomore at a university.
Participated in math olympiads and such since he was young. Seems like someone I would like to work with.