Yep all science is tenative and it's models are constantly improving. As you probaly know the IPCC rate clouds as having a low level of scientific understanding, regardless of the outcome getting a better handle on the CR idea will assist in modeling cloud formation
Thanks for the informative update. I was unaware anyone had found evidence of an 11yr cycle, that has been a major crticisim of the idea. Not sure why you didn't post this when we last "debated" the idea.;)
"I was going to say just this. 95% sounds good until you start thinking about it - but that means that in every hour of usage, the chair is going to spend three full minutes misbehaving. I can't find exact statistics or standards for conventional electric wheelchairs but I'd be amazed if the mean time before failure is measured in minutes rather than months or years."
Depends how you define "failure". For the type of patient that need this interface the existing interface methods would have up to a 100% failue rate simply because their disability prevents them from using it with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Yeah I had a "portable" 6" reel to reel and my radio had nine, count them, nine transistors!
Speaking of teenagers, I watched a series where some kids were out in the desert and they got to run a small town with no adults, once a week they competed in team games for some sort of reward. In one game the object was to put some pictures of various things in order of when they were invented. A kid ~13 picked up a picture of an old fashioned phonograph and read the label.
He turned to his his teamates holding up the picture and said "Phon-o-graph? - What the hell is that?", one teamate then suggested that whatever it was, it must have been invented after the TV since it had a DVD sitting on top of it.
"Wikipedia can't ever be considered an unbiased source."
Do you have an example of anything ever written in any part of the world that could be considered a unbiased source. IMHO this is a case where the means (temporary suppression of information) totally justified the end (a live reporter).
"Attack against the man? Theodor Landscheidt has published `peer reviewed' papers."
The guy describes himself as an "amature scientist", he has published a few un-notable papers in obscure journals that have been universally cited as bad examples. As for "attacking the man", don't be a hypocrite, you had a preety good go at attcking an internationally recognised expert on climate who has written over 60 papers and had them published in journals such as Science and Nature. Not a single peep from you about his facts.
"Or are you withholding judgement in his case because he believes in Astrology?"
No I'm not witholding it, my judgement is that any "amature scientist" who takes astrology so seriously as to write a book on it should at the very least have his geek card revoked.
Your other source is a TV weatherman who thinks a particular data set is so unreliable as to be useless, yet in the same breath he uses it to "prove" a cooling trend. Unsurprisingly he can't get his drivel published anywhere except his own web site.
Debating people like you is a waste of time it's about as productive as debating a young earth creationist. I'm know my limitations and I'm certain I lack the ability to stop you making a fool of yourself.
My point was that sand won't "pour" without gravity, nor will water (although both may form droplets if you just let it float). You haven't removed the "moving air variable" by removing gravity, to do that you need a stong vacum like the one the researchers used.
It will probably come as no surpise to you that the icecap site is run by a guy who is on the payroll at the Heartland Institute. From what I have observed the sphere of psuedo-skeptics has shrunk dramatically over the last decade, it is no longer very difficult to connect them all together as one large ball of self-referencing slime that also encompasses the dregs left over from the "tabacco science" crowd.
Hopefully the recursive nature of this phenomena will end with them dissapearing up thier own arseholes over the next few years.
"The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data."
Can we expect them to predict climate trends with the same accuarcy they predicted the credit crunch?
"It's terribly hard to read through something you don't agree with, isn't it? I wonder what else you're missing out on through not being able to stomach contrary opinions to your own. Your certainty and faith in the `consensus view' is truly frightening."
Harsh words from someone who's politics forces them to swallow a "scientific" report that references an expert astrologer - Perhaps you should check your horoscope to find out "what else I'm missing out on".
Clouds formation involves areosols and the IPCC reports state both phenomena as having a low level of scientific understanding. However Japan's Earth simulator does a very nice job of simulating clouds, precipitation and even hurricanes using the basic laws of physics. ( embeded movie half way down the page )
"Check out section 1.2 of the comments draft paper for Carlin's graphs of similar datasets."
I've seen enough of that report to determine it is a rehash of the descredited anti-science peddled by the CEI, my basic objection is that they are not Carlin's views, nor is it evidence, it is a summary of the discredited opinions of the lobbyists at CEI. I will simply assume section 1.2 is a rehash of Bob Carter's ingenuious conflation of upper troposhere measurements with surface measurements. Climate models correctly predict the cooling trend in the upper troposhere as observed by sattelites. IIRC this is due to the radative properties of CO2 and the increased distance between molecules at low pressure (ie absorbed IR energy is more likely to be re-relased as photons than preserved as kinetic energy in collisions). Please correct me if my assumption about section 1.2 is wrong.
"I'm not sure if you are familiar with (or at all interested in) this, but the "Climate Audit" blog is fairly interesting in terms of looking at the methodology and math of climate models, etc. Climate Audit and Real Climate are somewhat infamous for having a vicious feud going on as well."
Yes I am familiar with it and I followed the debate with interest as it unfolded. I wouldn't have called it a vicious feud, more a heated scientific debate, however these days realclimate (founded by M.Mann), all but ignores McIntrye (Founder of Climate Audit). As you probably know the debate was over the statistcal methods used in Mann's 1997 "Hockey stick" paper. You may also know that the debate culimnated in a congressional inquisition into Mann's paper, I say "inquisition" because who the hell holds a congressional inquiry on the veracity of a single paper? Anyway the National Academies of Sciences (who do know a thing or two about statistics) were dragged into the fray and asked to testify.
Many psuedo-skeptics such as those at CEI have since taken out of context quotes from that testiomony to tried and discredit Mann in the false belief that discrediting a single noteable paper would also dicredit the AGW hypothesis. However it seems nobody ever goes to the trouble of pointing to the text of the NAS testimony. Yes NAS qustioned Mann's confidence levels on certain statements but they also vindicated his methods and conclusions (much to the dissapointment of the inquisitors, I'm sure). To Mann's credit he has since addressed those critcisims with a follow up paper, the paper was peer-reviewed and published by his NAS critics in PNAS.
At the time the McIntyre/Mann debate was raging I respected McIntryre's tenacity and views, however since the inquisition he has failed to come up with any new papers on the subject (AFAIK his 2003 critique of Mann is his most recent paper). He has now also become a star attraction at the Heartland Institute's annual "Climate Confrences". In my book these developments currently disqualify him as a serious critic of Mann's work and I no longer frequent his site. As always YMMV.
BTW: From what I can find, the NAS testimony is not linked to by either RC or CA.
I don't understand your rant, you say trade "dollar for dollar" but then compain because their currency is pegged to the US dollar which is the reason why it's undervalued?
Sources for my claims include the 2007 IPCC SPM and the recent report from Copenhagen. There is definitely a strong consesus that more than 2deg warming will be detrimental to civilization and that such a rise will occur if we ignore the numbers I gave.
"That is not a free market"
"Free" - As in free to participate. (Anyone can bid on the limited number of permits)
"Market" - Trade conducted via a set of known rules. (Trade the permits for fun and profit)
Your opinion on cap and trade mearly side stepped my question on adaptation.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's your sense of humour today?
"Guns and beef" - A revolutionary veal
I hear performance will now be quoted in cluck cycles. /sorry
Yep all science is tenative and it's models are constantly improving. As you probaly know the IPCC rate clouds as having a low level of scientific understanding, regardless of the outcome getting a better handle on the CR idea will assist in modeling cloud formation
Thanks for the informative update. I was unaware anyone had found evidence of an 11yr cycle, that has been a major crticisim of the idea. Not sure why you didn't post this when we last "debated" the idea. ;)
Mabye cosmic rays effect the ozone layer, I don't really know. However claiming that CR's increase cloud cover is stretching the science well beyond what is known.
"I was going to say just this. 95% sounds good until you start thinking about it - but that means that in every hour of usage, the chair is going to spend three full minutes misbehaving. I can't find exact statistics or standards for conventional electric wheelchairs but I'd be amazed if the mean time before failure is measured in minutes rather than months or years."
Depends how you define "failure". For the type of patient that need this interface the existing interface methods would have up to a 100% failue rate simply because their disability prevents them from using it with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Yeah I had a "portable" 6" reel to reel and my radio had nine, count them, nine transistors!
Speaking of teenagers, I watched a series where some kids were out in the desert and they got to run a small town with no adults, once a week they competed in team games for some sort of reward. In one game the object was to put some pictures of various things in order of when they were invented. A kid ~13 picked up a picture of an old fashioned phonograph and read the label.
He turned to his his teamates holding up the picture and said "Phon-o-graph? - What the hell is that?", one teamate then suggested that whatever it was, it must have been invented after the TV since it had a DVD sitting on top of it.
Pfft, my gadget is 50yrs old, wanna see it? /jk
"Sure, it's 77 degrees (F) at 11:41 pm and the sun has set for the day here."
;)
Degrees (F)? - Carefull your bias toward the US audience is showing.
"Wikipedia can't ever be considered an unbiased source."
Do you have an example of anything ever written in any part of the world that could be considered a unbiased source. IMHO this is a case where the means (temporary suppression of information) totally justified the end (a live reporter).
"I find the news of Mr. Wales officially participating in the cover-up quite disturbing."
Since when do people participating in a "cover up" come forward after the fact and tell the whole world about it?
Maybe you were too busy foaming at the mouth to spot a joke.
"Attack against the man? Theodor Landscheidt has published `peer reviewed' papers."
The guy describes himself as an "amature scientist", he has published a few un-notable papers in obscure journals that have been universally cited as bad examples. As for "attacking the man", don't be a hypocrite, you had a preety good go at attcking an internationally recognised expert on climate who has written over 60 papers and had them published in journals such as Science and Nature. Not a single peep from you about his facts.
"Or are you withholding judgement in his case because he believes in Astrology?"
No I'm not witholding it, my judgement is that any "amature scientist" who takes astrology so seriously as to write a book on it should at the very least have his geek card revoked.
Your other source is a TV weatherman who thinks a particular data set is so unreliable as to be useless, yet in the same breath he uses it to "prove" a cooling trend. Unsurprisingly he can't get his drivel published anywhere except his own web site.
Debating people like you is a waste of time it's about as productive as debating a young earth creationist. I'm know my limitations and I'm certain I lack the ability to stop you making a fool of yourself.
My point was that sand won't "pour" without gravity, nor will water (although both may form droplets if you just let it float). You haven't removed the "moving air variable" by removing gravity, to do that you need a stong vacum like the one the researchers used.
It will probably come as no surpise to you that the icecap site is run by a guy who is on the payroll at the Heartland Institute. From what I have observed the sphere of psuedo-skeptics has shrunk dramatically over the last decade, it is no longer very difficult to connect them all together as one large ball of self-referencing slime that also encompasses the dregs left over from the "tabacco science" crowd.
Hopefully the recursive nature of this phenomena will end with them dissapearing up thier own arseholes over the next few years.
"The economist's job is to spot and analyze trends. Since global warming has everything to do with trend analysis, I think an economist is the perfect person to evaluate the data."
Can we expect them to predict climate trends with the same accuarcy they predicted the credit crunch?
"It's terribly hard to read through something you don't agree with, isn't it? I wonder what else you're missing out on through not being able to stomach contrary opinions to your own. Your certainty and faith in the `consensus view' is truly frightening."
Harsh words from someone who's politics forces them to swallow a "scientific" report that references an expert astrologer - Perhaps you should check your horoscope to find out "what else I'm missing out on".
I can only assume you are suffering from what is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect
Thanks for the RC link, I was unaware they had already debunked this Machevelian bullshit.
Thank you. :)
What about cloud formation?
Clouds formation involves areosols and the IPCC reports state both phenomena as having a low level of scientific understanding. However Japan's Earth simulator does a very nice job of simulating clouds, precipitation and even hurricanes using the basic laws of physics. ( embeded movie half way down the page )
"Check out section 1.2 of the comments draft paper for Carlin's graphs of similar datasets."
I've seen enough of that report to determine it is a rehash of the descredited anti-science peddled by the CEI, my basic objection is that they are not Carlin's views, nor is it evidence, it is a summary of the discredited opinions of the lobbyists at CEI. I will simply assume section 1.2 is a rehash of Bob Carter's ingenuious conflation of upper troposhere measurements with surface measurements. Climate models correctly predict the cooling trend in the upper troposhere as observed by sattelites. IIRC this is due to the radative properties of CO2 and the increased distance between molecules at low pressure (ie absorbed IR energy is more likely to be re-relased as photons than preserved as kinetic energy in collisions). Please correct me if my assumption about section 1.2 is wrong.
"I'm not sure if you are familiar with (or at all interested in) this, but the "Climate Audit" blog is fairly interesting in terms of looking at the methodology and math of climate models, etc. Climate Audit and Real Climate are somewhat infamous for having a vicious feud going on as well."
Yes I am familiar with it and I followed the debate with interest as it unfolded. I wouldn't have called it a vicious feud, more a heated scientific debate, however these days realclimate (founded by M.Mann), all but ignores McIntrye (Founder of Climate Audit). As you probably know the debate was over the statistcal methods used in Mann's 1997 "Hockey stick" paper. You may also know that the debate culimnated in a congressional inquisition into Mann's paper, I say "inquisition" because who the hell holds a congressional inquiry on the veracity of a single paper? Anyway the National Academies of Sciences (who do know a thing or two about statistics) were dragged into the fray and asked to testify.
Many psuedo-skeptics such as those at CEI have since taken out of context quotes from that testiomony to tried and discredit Mann in the false belief that discrediting a single noteable paper would also dicredit the AGW hypothesis. However it seems nobody ever goes to the trouble of pointing to the text of the NAS testimony. Yes NAS qustioned Mann's confidence levels on certain statements but they also vindicated his methods and conclusions (much to the dissapointment of the inquisitors, I'm sure). To Mann's credit he has since addressed those critcisims with a follow up paper, the paper was peer-reviewed and published by his NAS critics in PNAS.
At the time the McIntyre/Mann debate was raging I respected McIntryre's tenacity and views, however since the inquisition he has failed to come up with any new papers on the subject (AFAIK his 2003 critique of Mann is his most recent paper). He has now also become a star attraction at the Heartland Institute's annual "Climate Confrences". In my book these developments currently disqualify him as a serious critic of Mann's work and I no longer frequent his site. As always YMMV.
BTW: From what I can find, the NAS testimony is not linked to by either RC or CA.
I don't understand your rant, you say trade "dollar for dollar" but then compain because their currency is pegged to the US dollar which is the reason why it's undervalued?
Sources for my claims include the 2007 IPCC SPM and the recent report from Copenhagen. There is definitely a strong consesus that more than 2deg warming will be detrimental to civilization and that such a rise will occur if we ignore the numbers I gave.
"That is not a free market"
"Free" - As in free to participate. (Anyone can bid on the limited number of permits)
"Market" - Trade conducted via a set of known rules. (Trade the permits for fun and profit)
Your opinion on cap and trade mearly side stepped my question on adaptation.
"am I missing something?"
You claim one data set shows tempratures "leveling off", the report claims a "cooling trend".
See here, for what the TREND says.
"ignore his contradictory and biased claims" should read "ignore his contradictions and bias"