It's FB because it falsely implies the instrumental record is the entirety of the evidence, just as your post is FB because it falsely implies "scientists are in it for the money".
The point is that 130 years is not enough history to start calling trends on global climate shifts.
Which is incorrect, detecting an AGW signal with a statistically significant trend (95%) requires ~20yrs worth of data. More data will raise the confidence level but no amount of data can make it 100% certain. 100% certainty is what a lot of people who don't understand science and/or statistics are demanding. Oddly enough they only make this absurd demand for particular bits of science such as evolution and AGW, completely ignoring the fact that all scientific theories are dependent on other scientific theories and they must all play well together.
The physical fact that CO2 absorbs IR-radiation was predicted ~200yrs ago and confirmed by observation 150yrs ago. The job of the AGW skeptic since it was first proposed in 1896 has been to explain why increasing CO2 would not warm the Earth. In doing so the skeptic is sure to win a Nobel prize in Physics for revolutionising our understanding of spectroscopy and it's underlying quantum mechanical explanation.
Incidentaly AGW was initially rejected due to evidence from spectrometers in use up until the 50's. The objection to AGW supported by the evidence from spectrometers was that the broad peak of the H2O spectrum overlapped and thus cancelled the effect of CO2. Spectrometers with higher resolution developed by the military to improve heat seeking missiles convincingly debunked that long standing objection.
It's quite a well known graph but it does not show that it has been hotter in the past 12,000 yrs than now, (which is what you implied with your original comment about records), in fact it shows the opposite. It shows 2004 was significantly warmer than at any other time during the Holocene. The thick black line is a moving average with an interval measured in centuries (it states a 500yr interval was used for sediment proxies, other proxies are likely to be 1-200yr intervals). Since the duration of recent human induced warming fits entirely within the last moving average interval the graph smooths out the hockey stick at the end. In other words the last 50yrs is virtually invisible on the 12,000yr X axis and only accounts for part of the last data point on the black line. This is why they included the hockey stick insert for comparison, it effectively zooms in on the last 2Kyrs of the main graph to display the rapid increase that is not apparent in the moving average.
All climate scientists of any repute from the last 50yrs will tell you CO2 has been the dominant regulator of the Earth's climate since multi-cellular life first appeared 500M years ago, the last time CO2 was at similar levels as today was 3M years ago, long before humans walked the Earth.
The part about minerals is nonesense, it's not enough to warrant the military expenditure. Afganistan has been a strategic crossroad for 8,000yrs (and has had mines for even longer), there is one ancient Afgan city (forget the name) that has been levelled 800 times in the last 7,000yrs. In the old days it was silk and spice from the far east that gave Afghanistan its stratigic importance, today its strategic value is due to the oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian sea. It's also interesting to look at a map and see where Iran is in relation to the Caspian sea.
Absolute fucking bullshit. The first casualty of the Iraq war was a Jordainian taxi driver, he was killed by a cruise missile that was aimed directly at Saddam and there are plenty of other examples of direct attacks on leaders from the 20th century. The "elite" may be all mates during peace time but make no mistake, the 'honourable' Medeval practice of capturing enemy nobility alive for the ransom money is long gone, when today's elite fight a war the aim is to kill each other.
Let's ignore the fact that one side of your equation has lost the time units and assume you're correct. We can now play ad-absurdium by applying your numbers to my house which uses ~1.5KWh/day, so by your equation my house requires a ~5MW generator. We can now extrapolate that to find the city I live in requires 5TW, which (according to my google fu) is slightly more that the total generation capacity of the entire US.
I agree the MAD doctrine has (so far) worked well to avoid a nuclear holocaust, but threats cannot keep the peace in the everyday "mutually exclusive destruction" scenarios.
How much terrorism did the old Soviet Union suffer?
Enough to send them broke? - The 'terrorist' the US are fighting now in Afghanistan were initially armed, trained and financed by the CIA to drive the USSR out of Afghanistan. Many have argued that the CIA sponsored 'freedom fighters' of the past were the straw that broke the USSR's back.
When your enemies neither respect or fear you is when you get the foolishness we currently endure.
If respect is what your looking for, you won't get it by simply instilling fear. What you get with fear alone is either an angry hornets nest, or a bunch of 'yes men' waiting for their chance to slit your throat and steal your hat, after all, you have set the contemporary example of how to be the boss, right?
The real question is; what makes you think Google is being treated any differently? - I see plenty of posts baying for Google blood.
I find the idea of hating an entire company a bit odd, the company I work for has 150K+ employees, they can't all be micromanaged so shit like this will happen. If due diligence can be shown to have failed*, companies should not be judged by the failure, they should be judged by their reaction to it.
* - eg: Did Google make any effort to ensure that the (non-western) employees in question were aware that the practice is considered fraudulent by western courts.
Speaking of logic, if you DON'T KNOW what it's used for, why are you so certain about who's pants are on fire? Also if the functionality is unknown (to you) then how did you determine what it COULD be used for (other than 'anything is possible')?
The problem is, tossing blame like this is the first refuge of incompetent government.
Except it's not the government, it's one politician. Surely whatever country you come from has a few politicians that make similarly ridiculous statements for domestic consumption. I know if you live in the US you will be under a constant barrage of such bullshit in the form of political attack ads. Similarly, what we have here is an obscure blow-hard trying to look appealing to Russian nationalists.
How long before the people have a (renewed) hate of the USA?
Any Russian who swallows this guy's story was already anti-US, just like the 'birthers' were anti-Obama long before they started denying his citizenship, or like 'truthers' were anti-Bush long before they started banging on about 'building 7'. In other words what we are looking at is common garden variety propaganda aimed directly at 'useful idiots', and Russia certainly doesn't have a monopoly on propaganda or idiots. None of this means I condone politicians spreading lies and half truths about anything, anywhere, but it's an unfortunate fact of life that propaganda has, and always will be, a primary tool of politics.
Now IF this was Putin making official speeches with this sort of crap in it, THEN your scenario might have legs. As it stands the GP's "post vodka blame game" is where I'd put my money.
it is much more likely the result of additional water vapor being pumped into the atmosphere
The Earth's atmosphere is at or near saturation point wrt to H20, meaning there are only two ways to change the amount of water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere;
1. Change the temperature.
2. Change the air pressure.
These two things alone determine the dew point, in other words you can pump till your blue in the face and all that will happen is you will get wet..
"the grain belt of the midwestern US would eventually move up into Canada" and the midwest would become a desert because of the poleward expansion of the tropical Hadley Cells.
It started in 1824 when Fourier predicted the IR absorption properties of CO2 while inventing spectroscopy. Tyndall confirmed the prediction in the 1850's and finally in 1896 Arrhenius started looking into the effects of industrial CO2 emissions on the climate (not sure if any of them had a phd). The idea was dismissed for about 50yrs due to the argument that water's broad IR absorption spectrum obscured and therefore cancelled CO2's narrower IR absorption spectrum. It wasn't until spectrometers with better resolution (invented to research missiles) came about in the 50's that it overcame that last serious objection, (turned out that the frequency peaks are interleaved not overlapped). In 1958 the NAS warned the US government that our emission's were changing our climate and the political bun fight started in earnest.
The smallest computer glitch can have a huge impact on a project if not caught, especially if one considers that many will unquestioningly accept whatever the software spits out. I like to think that Slashdotters already realize this.
Of course we do, so do climate scientists. Which is why when scientists say "climate models predict" they're talking about the statistics of thousands of runs on hundreds of different models.
I think the gold standard should be it's utility. Try googling, you will find dozens of forward predictions similar to these...
1. The phenomena known as "Polar amplification" was predicted before it was observed.
2. The phenomena known as "Stratospheric cooling" was predicted before it was observed.
5. Accurately predicted the climatic impact of the Mt Pinatobo eruption.
These sort of tests don't even start to list the basic predictive skill a climate model needs to be considered useful, such as the ocean currents, air pressure patterns, the roaring forties, monsoons, ENSO, the formation of tropical cyclones in the right geographical locations in the right season, the morning clouds in the Amazon burnt of by the sun, sea ice extent, all these things and much more must be accurately hind-cast before you can even start to ask "what if" questions.
Please define "climate scientists", who's in, who's out? Please also categorize[sic] the thousands of scientists whom are not convinced.
Short version; both are "ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)".
When your intellectual laziness reaches the point where you can't even be bothered to read what's been spoon fed to you, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear pig-ignorant than it is to call yourself a 'skeptic' and remove all doubt. Skepticisim's fruits come primarily from applying it to one's own assumptions. Which is why I prefer the term 'psuedo-skeptic' for people who don't. As opposed to 'denier' which seems more applicable to the 50 or so lobbying groups and their sponsors that are responsible for the propaganda that has cleaned the brains of hundreds of millions of intelligent people.
Please don't take my post as an insult, it's tough to question one's own assumptions. World renowned skeptic James Randi's own farther died prematurely because he was conned into being psuedo-skeptical of conventional medicine by a charlatan. As an eleven year old who had worked out his dad was being conned, Randi was angry enough to spend the rest of his long life exposing charlatan's.
As a young man in his early 20's I was a great believer in what Randi calls "woo-woo science". Ury Geller [sic?] was the real deal to me and I read every book I could find on woo for 3-4 years (most in what I now know is a literary style called "false document"). One day I picked up Randi's book debunking Geller, thinking I would be able to easily refute anything a "magician" had to say, obviously I was wrong. As I said above, my intent is not to insult. I'm attempting to slap you in the face like Randi's book did to me, then I want you to get angry at the 'deniers' who are selling your profile to their sponsor's PR department as a "useful idiot".
. I was recently smoking out the front of Flinders St. Station, ( the main train station in Melbourne and situated on the corner of one of Australia's busiest intersections), a 20'ish cop comes and moves me on because I'm not supposed to smoke under the roof. So I look at her and say in a clam but incredulous voice; "Seriously? I've been smoking in this spot for 30yrs and even I can smell the diesel fumes". She said "$250 fine is serious". So I took three steps from under the (30ft high) roof line where I was sat by myself on a ledge, to the edge of the footpath where I was stood near the crowd waiting at the taxi rank. Having suitably fucked up mine and everyone else's comfort, she left, (probably to taser the guy who was feeding the pigeons). .
Uhhh...how EXACTLY is that flamebait? doesn't anyone know their history anymore?
The post paints a very one sided picture. There will always be arguments over whether he was a great, or a grotesque man. Truth be told he was probably like most heroes and villains; a bit of both.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no flamebait at all.
It's FB because it falsely implies the instrumental record is the entirety of the evidence, just as your post is FB because it falsely implies "scientists are in it for the money".
The point is that 130 years is not enough history to start calling trends on global climate shifts.
Which is incorrect, detecting an AGW signal with a statistically significant trend (95%) requires ~20yrs worth of data. More data will raise the confidence level but no amount of data can make it 100% certain. 100% certainty is what a lot of people who don't understand science and/or statistics are demanding. Oddly enough they only make this absurd demand for particular bits of science such as evolution and AGW, completely ignoring the fact that all scientific theories are dependent on other scientific theories and they must all play well together.
The physical fact that CO2 absorbs IR-radiation was predicted ~200yrs ago and confirmed by observation 150yrs ago. The job of the AGW skeptic since it was first proposed in 1896 has been to explain why increasing CO2 would not warm the Earth. In doing so the skeptic is sure to win a Nobel prize in Physics for revolutionising our understanding of spectroscopy and it's underlying quantum mechanical explanation.
Incidentaly AGW was initially rejected due to evidence from spectrometers in use up until the 50's. The objection to AGW supported by the evidence from spectrometers was that the broad peak of the H2O spectrum overlapped and thus cancelled the effect of CO2. Spectrometers with higher resolution developed by the military to improve heat seeking missiles convincingly debunked that long standing objection.
It's quite a well known graph but it does not show that it has been hotter in the past 12,000 yrs than now, (which is what you implied with your original comment about records), in fact it shows the opposite. It shows 2004 was significantly warmer than at any other time during the Holocene. The thick black line is a moving average with an interval measured in centuries (it states a 500yr interval was used for sediment proxies, other proxies are likely to be 1-200yr intervals). Since the duration of recent human induced warming fits entirely within the last moving average interval the graph smooths out the hockey stick at the end. In other words the last 50yrs is virtually invisible on the 12,000yr X axis and only accounts for part of the last data point on the black line. This is why they included the hockey stick insert for comparison, it effectively zooms in on the last 2Kyrs of the main graph to display the rapid increase that is not apparent in the moving average.
All climate scientists of any repute from the last 50yrs will tell you CO2 has been the dominant regulator of the Earth's climate since multi-cellular life first appeared 500M years ago, the last time CO2 was at similar levels as today was 3M years ago, long before humans walked the Earth.
for the survivors it means less competition for limited resources
That's not how it worked out for the Easter Islanders.
if every "work" (which includes speeches) is instantly under copyright from the moment I utter it
The 'work' for purposes of copyright is the *written* speech.
The part about minerals is nonesense, it's not enough to warrant the military expenditure. Afganistan has been a strategic crossroad for 8,000yrs (and has had mines for even longer), there is one ancient Afgan city (forget the name) that has been levelled 800 times in the last 7,000yrs. In the old days it was silk and spice from the far east that gave Afghanistan its stratigic importance, today its strategic value is due to the oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian sea. It's also interesting to look at a map and see where Iran is in relation to the Caspian sea.
Absolute fucking bullshit. The first casualty of the Iraq war was a Jordainian taxi driver, he was killed by a cruise missile that was aimed directly at Saddam and there are plenty of other examples of direct attacks on leaders from the 20th century. The "elite" may be all mates during peace time but make no mistake, the 'honourable' Medeval practice of capturing enemy nobility alive for the ransom money is long gone, when today's elite fight a war the aim is to kill each other.
as above, 1kWh = 3.6MW
Let's ignore the fact that one side of your equation has lost the time units and assume you're correct. We can now play ad-absurdium by applying your numbers to my house which uses ~1.5KWh/day, so by your equation my house requires a ~5MW generator. We can now extrapolate that to find the city I live in requires 5TW, which (according to my google fu) is slightly more that the total generation capacity of the entire US.
I agree the MAD doctrine has (so far) worked well to avoid a nuclear holocaust, but threats cannot keep the peace in the everyday "mutually exclusive destruction" scenarios.
How much terrorism did the old Soviet Union suffer?
Enough to send them broke? - The 'terrorist' the US are fighting now in Afghanistan were initially armed, trained and financed by the CIA to drive the USSR out of Afghanistan. Many have argued that the CIA sponsored 'freedom fighters' of the past were the straw that broke the USSR's back.
When your enemies neither respect or fear you is when you get the foolishness we currently endure.
If respect is what your looking for, you won't get it by simply instilling fear. What you get with fear alone is either an angry hornets nest, or a bunch of 'yes men' waiting for their chance to slit your throat and steal your hat, after all, you have set the contemporary example of how to be the boss, right?
The real question is; what makes you think Google is being treated any differently? - I see plenty of posts baying for Google blood.
I find the idea of hating an entire company a bit odd, the company I work for has 150K+ employees, they can't all be micromanaged so shit like this will happen. If due diligence can be shown to have failed*, companies should not be judged by the failure, they should be judged by their reaction to it.
* - eg: Did Google make any effort to ensure that the (non-western) employees in question were aware that the practice is considered fraudulent by western courts.
Speaking of logic, if you DON'T KNOW what it's used for, why are you so certain about who's pants are on fire? Also if the functionality is unknown (to you) then how did you determine what it COULD be used for (other than 'anything is possible')?
The problem is, tossing blame like this is the first refuge of incompetent government.
Except it's not the government, it's one politician. Surely whatever country you come from has a few politicians that make similarly ridiculous statements for domestic consumption. I know if you live in the US you will be under a constant barrage of such bullshit in the form of political attack ads. Similarly, what we have here is an obscure blow-hard trying to look appealing to Russian nationalists.
How long before the people have a (renewed) hate of the USA?
Any Russian who swallows this guy's story was already anti-US, just like the 'birthers' were anti-Obama long before they started denying his citizenship, or like 'truthers' were anti-Bush long before they started banging on about 'building 7'. In other words what we are looking at is common garden variety propaganda aimed directly at 'useful idiots', and Russia certainly doesn't have a monopoly on propaganda or idiots. None of this means I condone politicians spreading lies and half truths about anything, anywhere, but it's an unfortunate fact of life that propaganda has, and always will be, a primary tool of politics.
Now IF this was Putin making official speeches with this sort of crap in it, THEN your scenario might have legs. As it stands the GP's "post vodka blame game" is where I'd put my money.
So, if the scientists do all the work themselves, why not just start their own publishing company?
Who do you think started the existing publishers, soccer moms?
it is much more likely the result of additional water vapor being pumped into the atmosphere
The Earth's atmosphere is at or near saturation point wrt to H20, meaning there are only two ways to change the amount of water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere;
1. Change the temperature.
2. Change the air pressure.
These two things alone determine the dew point, in other words you can pump till your blue in the face and all that will happen is you will get wet..
"the grain belt of the midwestern US would eventually move up into Canada" and the midwest would become a desert because of the poleward expansion of the tropical Hadley Cells.
The real history:
It started in 1824 when Fourier predicted the IR absorption properties of CO2 while inventing spectroscopy. Tyndall confirmed the prediction in the 1850's and finally in 1896 Arrhenius started looking into the effects of industrial CO2 emissions on the climate (not sure if any of them had a phd). The idea was dismissed for about 50yrs due to the argument that water's broad IR absorption spectrum obscured and therefore cancelled CO2's narrower IR absorption spectrum. It wasn't until spectrometers with better resolution (invented to research missiles) came about in the 50's that it overcame that last serious objection, (turned out that the frequency peaks are interleaved not overlapped). In 1958 the NAS warned the US government that our emission's were changing our climate and the political bun fight started in earnest.
The smallest computer glitch can have a huge impact on a project if not caught, especially if one considers that many will unquestioningly accept whatever the software spits out. I like to think that Slashdotters already realize this.
Of course we do, so do climate scientists. Which is why when scientists say "climate models predict" they're talking about the statistics of thousands of runs on hundreds of different models.
I think the gold standard should be it's utility. Try googling, you will find dozens of forward predictions similar to these...
1. The phenomena known as "Polar amplification" was predicted before it was observed.
2. The phenomena known as "Stratospheric cooling" was predicted before it was observed.
5. Accurately predicted the climatic impact of the Mt Pinatobo eruption.
These sort of tests don't even start to list the basic predictive skill a climate model needs to be considered useful, such as the ocean currents, air pressure patterns, the roaring forties, monsoons, ENSO, the formation of tropical cyclones in the right geographical locations in the right season, the morning clouds in the Amazon burnt of by the sun, sea ice extent, all these things and much more must be accurately hind-cast before you can even start to ask "what if" questions.
Please define "climate scientists", who's in, who's out? Please also categorize[sic] the thousands of scientists whom are not convinced.
Short version; both are "ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)".
When your intellectual laziness reaches the point where you can't even be bothered to read what's been spoon fed to you, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear pig-ignorant than it is to call yourself a 'skeptic' and remove all doubt. Skepticisim's fruits come primarily from applying it to one's own assumptions. Which is why I prefer the term 'psuedo-skeptic' for people who don't. As opposed to 'denier' which seems more applicable to the 50 or so lobbying groups and their sponsors that are responsible for the propaganda that has cleaned the brains of hundreds of millions of intelligent people.
Please don't take my post as an insult, it's tough to question one's own assumptions. World renowned skeptic James Randi's own farther died prematurely because he was conned into being psuedo-skeptical of conventional medicine by a charlatan. As an eleven year old who had worked out his dad was being conned, Randi was angry enough to spend the rest of his long life exposing charlatan's.
As a young man in his early 20's I was a great believer in what Randi calls "woo-woo science". Ury Geller [sic?] was the real deal to me and I read every book I could find on woo for 3-4 years (most in what I now know is a literary style called "false document"). One day I picked up Randi's book debunking Geller, thinking I would be able to easily refute anything a "magician" had to say, obviously I was wrong. As I said above, my intent is not to insult. I'm attempting to slap you in the face like Randi's book did to me, then I want you to get angry at the 'deniers' who are selling your profile to their sponsor's PR department as a "useful idiot".
Smoking in public exposes bystanders to secondhand smoke
Yes but there are plenty of people who are 'sensitive' to smoke
. I was recently smoking out the front of Flinders St. Station, ( the main train station in Melbourne and situated on the corner of one of Australia's busiest intersections), a 20'ish cop comes and moves me on because I'm not supposed to smoke under the roof. So I look at her and say in a clam but incredulous voice; "Seriously? I've been smoking in this spot for 30yrs and even I can smell the diesel fumes". She said "$250 fine is serious". So I took three steps from under the (30ft high) roof line where I was sat by myself on a ledge, to the edge of the footpath where I was stood near the crowd waiting at the taxi rank. Having suitably fucked up mine and everyone else's comfort, she left, (probably to taser the guy who was feeding the pigeons). .
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
Great, so you won't mind me shitting in the street, out the front of your house? - My neighbours don't understand freedom like you and I do.
but unless there is unanimous consent, you're stealing from some people to pay for it.
LOL, and we could have world peace if everyone just stopped trying to kill each other.
puritanical desire
EU:
Population 500M
Prison population (total) 600K
USA:
Population 300M
Prison population (drug crimes only) 500K
In Soviet USA, Brooklyn Bridge takes photo of you.
Uhhh...how EXACTLY is that flamebait? doesn't anyone know their history anymore?
The post paints a very one sided picture. There will always be arguments over whether he was a great, or a grotesque man. Truth be told he was probably like most heroes and villains; a bit of both.