Apparently there is one good thing about living in New York.
I'll stay in Colorado though. The view/people/traffic/cost of living/clean air/clean water/cab drivers/attitude/etc. is better here. And I can get just about anything at the restaurants. Rattlesnake salad? Elk Consumme?
Yes, I had one of those posts. I was rapidly modded up to +5 (Insightful/Informative). Two days later (when the main rush had passed) all of my +5 comments had been modded down to -1 (Flamebait). So, in a retroactive form of "censorship" those who disagreed with the skeptic point of view made sure that my comments would hit the archive as flamebait, making it nearly impossible to find a dissenting view from the "party line" when looking at the article from the archives.
So, yes, there's an initial rush of conservative mod points, but the overall leaning is to damp those views down, and it appears that's the way it was handled on YouTube as well. I'm not talking about this one video (the Zucker video of Albright/Kim Jong Il) but of Michelle Malkin's postings, which were all just commentary. No nudity, no profanity, etc. Her videos were flagged, and when the YouTube "censorship board" saw the videos, they not only removed them, they also banned Malkin from the site. That's censorship plain and simple. She was banned for views they (YouTube) didn't agree with.
Now, I think that DailyKos and Democratic Underground are a bunch of borderline lunatics, but I think they have every right to post whatever they want. More power to 'em. And, on Slashdot, I have never, ever used my mod points to mod down an opinion I disagree with unless it's phrased in pure inflamatory terms (ad hominem attacks, blatant mistruths, comparisons to certain German dictators during WWII). I have even modded up opinions I personally disagree with as long as they're couched as a profound argument or at least not a blatant attack.
The only time that I would use the term anti-American is when someone tries to ban speech of any kind. That is unAmerican. And that's what YouTube did to Michelle Malkin.
Err... Tie, loss, ties (at best) -- maybe you can count Grenada as a win, scrimmage, tie, quick win -- ugly post game party with sore loser fans, and Iraq 2 has the U.S. up in the 3rd quarter but facing a tenacious comeback attempt with referees (U.N.) clearly biased against the U.S.
So, I see one "win" in Grenada under Reagan, but that wasn't really a fair game, that was the Superbowl Champs vs. the local grade school J.V. team.
And a win in Afghanistan that the NATO troops seem to be losing to the reserves in overtime.
RTFA. It's called the "Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamok" reactor. That means magnetic plasma confinement. It's not that hard to figure out.
And it's a fusion reactor, so there is no "nuclear pile" since that applies only in a fission reactor.
Well, if this is a telecom, then I can tell you exactly who is to blame for this mess, your favorite Uncle, Sam.
Having worked for a telecom (one that might just have had the biggest bankruptcy in history), I went to one of their main voice switching centers and was shown an entire room that looked like this. When I asked why in the world we had an entire room that was just cable loops that went from a DEMUX board to a MUX board, he told me that federal law requires them to break out every signal that travels through the data center down to the DS1 level (that's about 25 phone lines) so that the FBI can still use their 1950's based equipment to tap the phone lines.
So, instead of just packet sniffing on the 20 OC-192 lines coming in and out of the main switch, they had to break that down into nearly one million DS1 ports in a room that wasn't used for any other purpose than to break down phone lines to DS1.
With one million lines of cabling being demuxed down from OC-192 to OC-12 and then down to DS-3 and then DS-1, that room was just awash in yellow cable (they also used yellow for some reason, don't ask me why). I remember one bundle coming out of the room that was about two feet around of solid cable.
Mind you, when the phone techs actually tested the line they just went to a PC and snagged the packets off the OC-192 stream, and played them through the sound card. In order to "test line quality" of course.
Just try to get married and tell your wife that she won't have access to your account, and that she should only get to spend the money she makes. I've seen gunfights that started that way...
I used to be just like you. I could tell you the balance of my account to within 5 dollars just because I knew all the ins and outs.
Suddenly I'm married, and the word "Overdrawn" entered my vocabulary.
Imagine the dulcet tones of your wife saying, "How can we be overdrawn? I didn't spend that much when I was out shopping. Didn't I tell you I went shopping? What bills?"
All I know for certain is that since I got married, I've increased my earnings by a factor of 400%, and there's still no money in the account...
For everyone screaming "If you hack the server..."
I've already seen this "next generation phishing" method used. I was on e-bay looking for a piece of autographed memorabilia. I noticed one auction and clicked on it. The E-Bay login screen popped up. I was about half-way through typing my password when it suddenly occured to me, "Wait a second, why do I have to enter my account to view an auction."
Careful review showed me that opening the auction had triggered some embedded javascript that opened a frame within the e-bay window that covered the whole base page, but presented a spoof of the e-bay login screen. The title bar still read as a legitimate e-bay address, the screen was a perfect dupe of the e-bay login screen. In short, it looked totally legitimate.
Now, they didn't have to hack e-bay's servers, nor did they have direct access to anything on e-bay's site. All they had to do was embed some javascript into an otherwise "secure" site.
I think that's what this article is talking about.
Oh, and I was running firefox with a javascript blocker, but since I've allowed scripts on e-bay (you can't even view most of the auctions without it) it happily ran the phishing script without even a warning.
Gosh, you sure put me in my place. I must be the only one calling for the IPCC to fund bringing the proxies up to date. The fact that it is currently referred to as "The greatest scandal in climate science" and that a group of over 1,000 scientists with PhD's have called for the proxies to be updated is no excuse for my egotistical call for the same.
Clearly, asking for researchers to present all their data is a cruel, heartless, and unfair thing to do. The fact that Mann's last paper contained a folder in his data labeled "CENSORED" is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty, but merely a sign of protection from my own ignorance. That it required an act of Congress to make him publish his publicly funded data and methodology is clearly the way science should be done. I mean, that's not the exact same thing that you rabidly accuse the tobacco industry (rightly) of doing.
Oh good. Method of CO2 change is irrelavent. So then, why worry about whether mankind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's irrelevant. And I thought that I was an anthropogenic global climate change skeptic.
Non sequitur. The mechanisms for changing CO2 levels are not well known. The IPCC recognizes over 20 carbon sources and sinks in the model, less than half of which are "well known". Tectonic uplift is a negligible contributor of Carbon sinks, in fact it's one of the less well known items, and likely has very little effect, as most rock is chemically stable, and any reaction with the atmosphere is usually as an O2 sink. Vulcanism tends to add massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere very rapidly (Mt. Pinatubo put something like ten times the CO2 output of every car in the U.S. into the atmosphere in a matter of minutes.) As for other sources...
Decomposition, animal digestion byproducts, burning, forest fires, CO2 outgassing from the ocean, CO2 outgassing from permafrost, CO2 outgassing from ancient peat bogs, and, of course, anthropogenic sources, such as the burning of fossil fuels, and others, like your tectonic changes.
Cabon sinks are also out there, CO2 dissolution into the oceans, atmospheric CO2 absorbtion by water vapor, plant growth, ocean planktons, ultraviolet breakdown of CO2 into carbonates, seashell formation, deep water sedimentation of plant matter, etc.
Very few of these rates are actually known. Some of them aren't known to better than 50% accuracy.
CO2 is an infrared absorbtive material. Wonderful. It will absorb infrared in the upper atmosphere, heating it and preventing convection of the heat from the surface to space (and that's the actual role of CO2, not the "glass cieling model taught in fifth grade science class.) So, temperatures in the upper atmosphere should be skyrocketing if CO2 is the cause of global warming. That's what every computer model shows.
Satellites, however, tell a different story. There is no upper atmospheric warming. So, what do scientists, those rational unbiased finders of fact, do? Why they just start saying, "We know it must be happening, so we'll add a "fudge factor" to those satellite readings, and then claim that we've solved the problem." Yeah, no bias there.
...what do you expect - all the ice to melt in a few years?
Al Gore just told me I have ten years until the ice caps melt and Florida is under water. New York in 50 years, Half the U.S. by 2100. But in your world, it takes 800 years to melt a few glaciers a few percent. Who's right? Where's all that consensus I keep hearing about? And that's just the easy hole to poke in your "consensus" of climate science.
Oh, and the Antarctic ice cap is increasing in mass by more than the Artic ice cap is melting. Sorry again. (No citation, get off your own ass and look it up.)
RealClimate blatantly states that it is based on the argument that for some unknown reason something besides CO2 causes 800 years of warming, and then suddenly that unknown cause goes away and CO2 causes 4200 years of warming, but then just stops causing warming when it's at it's highest concentration for no apparent reason and we drop into another ice age. Linking to non-reviewed papers by members of the team that produce the website isn't exactly what I call resounding proof.
Also you demonstrate that you have no idea how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It does not "reflect back" the heat. If anything, it absorbs more heat in the upper atmoshphere, preventing it from ever reaching the ground. That additional heat slows convection which is the major method of heat dispersion in the atmosphere. It also requires that the upper atmosphere rise in temperature much faster than the lower atmosphere, which every computer climate model shows. However, it isn't happening in the real atmosphere, a fact which is blatantly overlooked by the climate prediction group.
So, in your model, we have a low CO2 atmosphere, which is warmed by a Milankovitch cycle. Over 800 years, the Earth thaws, and CO2 is added to the atmosphere, but incredibly slowly. It takes 800 years to bump up enough CO2 to reach a tipping point, where the sun becomes unimportant to the cycle and temperature starts to rise because of CO2, which causes more CO2 to flood into the atmosphere (although at the same slow rate, despite insistence by current climate scientists that CO2 increase causes a positive feedback and exponential heating.) Now the CO2 reaches its highest level of 10,000 years and...
...everything stops...
The Earth plunges back into an ice age.
So, by this theory, warming isn't caused by CO2, but then it is, and then finally CO2 causes rapid cooling. So, if CO2 goes up, and it warms up, then CO2 causes global warming, but if CO2 goes up and it cools down, then CO2 causes global warming. If global warming is happening we'll have more hurricanes, if we have fewer hurricanes, that's because of global warming too. In other words, the theory is non-falsifiable. There's a name for non-falsifiable theories. It's called religion.
Sigh. In your own last paragraph, you contradict the first two. "man made carbon dioxide can cause carbon dioxide levels to change and precede warming effects" -- Okay, CO2 causes warming when it's man made, but -- "natural changes in carbon dioxide levels require warming to occur and thus lag behind warming events from other causes" -- so you agree with my original point. Mann is schizophrenic when it comes to CO2.
BY the way, you might want to look at this recent study http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=795#more-795 before holding out your climate models as some golden standard of wonderfulness.
Uhm, while Mann's team holds only a single undergrad degree in general statistics, their "oponents" McIntyre hold's a degree in pure mathematics and a doctorate in geology, and Ross McKittrick has a PhD in economics which we all know doesn't use any math. Oh, and their four papers have all been peer reviewed and approved, while Mann's "Hockey Stick" holds the distinction of being the first paper in twenty years for which Nature published a retraction because of all the errors in the paper.
I'm not ignoring the swing, I'm telling you that in the overall picture of things, a 0.28% change in greenhouse gasses is negligible compared to the estimated 1.3% variance in solar output measured during the last 40 years. But go ahead and focus on the wrong variable. I'm tired of the lack of anyone on this list to open their brain and actually search out *all* the data, including some that *isn't* reported in Popular Science magazine and the New York Times.
Water levels in the atmosphere vary by 35% to 75% on a daily basis. Or is it always 72 degrees and partly cloudly in fantasyland where you live?
Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. It varies up to 75% on a day by day basis. Despite this major role in global temperature, climate scientists can't even agree if it is a positive or negative feedback system. Spare me the diatribe and do just a *tiny* bit of research into the problems of climate modeling.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not mayonnaise, it's tzatziki, a yoghurt-based cucumber sauce.
Get it right.
Now mod me off-topic already.
Apparently there is one good thing about living in New York.
I'll stay in Colorado though. The view/people/traffic/cost of living/clean air/clean water/cab drivers/attitude/etc. is better here. And I can get just about anything at the restaurants. Rattlesnake salad? Elk Consumme?
Aargh! You have a gyro cart !!! I have to drive half an hour to get gyros! Curse you!
Yes, I had one of those posts. I was rapidly modded up to +5 (Insightful/Informative). Two days later (when the main rush had passed) all of my +5 comments had been modded down to -1 (Flamebait). So, in a retroactive form of "censorship" those who disagreed with the skeptic point of view made sure that my comments would hit the archive as flamebait, making it nearly impossible to find a dissenting view from the "party line" when looking at the article from the archives.
So, yes, there's an initial rush of conservative mod points, but the overall leaning is to damp those views down, and it appears that's the way it was handled on YouTube as well. I'm not talking about this one video (the Zucker video of Albright/Kim Jong Il) but of Michelle Malkin's postings, which were all just commentary. No nudity, no profanity, etc. Her videos were flagged, and when the YouTube "censorship board" saw the videos, they not only removed them, they also banned Malkin from the site. That's censorship plain and simple. She was banned for views they (YouTube) didn't agree with.
Now, I think that DailyKos and Democratic Underground are a bunch of borderline lunatics, but I think they have every right to post whatever they want. More power to 'em. And, on Slashdot, I have never, ever used my mod points to mod down an opinion I disagree with unless it's phrased in pure inflamatory terms (ad hominem attacks, blatant mistruths, comparisons to certain German dictators during WWII). I have even modded up opinions I personally disagree with as long as they're couched as a profound argument or at least not a blatant attack.
The only time that I would use the term anti-American is when someone tries to ban speech of any kind. That is unAmerican. And that's what YouTube did to Michelle Malkin.
Err... Tie, loss, ties (at best) -- maybe you can count Grenada as a win, scrimmage, tie, quick win -- ugly post game party with sore loser fans, and Iraq 2 has the U.S. up in the 3rd quarter but facing a tenacious comeback attempt with referees (U.N.) clearly biased against the U.S.
So, I see one "win" in Grenada under Reagan, but that wasn't really a fair game, that was the Superbowl Champs vs. the local grade school J.V. team.
And a win in Afghanistan that the NATO troops seem to be losing to the reserves in overtime.
Considering that I cut/pasted the name from the article and just added the bold tag, I refuse to accept responsibility for the typos.
;-)
I nebber macke tipowgrafical mistrakes...
RTFA. It's called the "Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamok" reactor. That means magnetic plasma confinement. It's not that hard to figure out.
And it's a fusion reactor, so there is no "nuclear pile" since that applies only in a fission reactor.
Well, if this is a telecom, then I can tell you exactly who is to blame for this mess, your favorite Uncle, Sam.
Having worked for a telecom (one that might just have had the biggest bankruptcy in history), I went to one of their main voice switching centers and was shown an entire room that looked like this. When I asked why in the world we had an entire room that was just cable loops that went from a DEMUX board to a MUX board, he told me that federal law requires them to break out every signal that travels through the data center down to the DS1 level (that's about 25 phone lines) so that the FBI can still use their 1950's based equipment to tap the phone lines.
So, instead of just packet sniffing on the 20 OC-192 lines coming in and out of the main switch, they had to break that down into nearly one million DS1 ports in a room that wasn't used for any other purpose than to break down phone lines to DS1.
With one million lines of cabling being demuxed down from OC-192 to OC-12 and then down to DS-3 and then DS-1, that room was just awash in yellow cable (they also used yellow for some reason, don't ask me why). I remember one bundle coming out of the room that was about two feet around of solid cable.
Mind you, when the phone techs actually tested the line they just went to a PC and snagged the packets off the OC-192 stream, and played them through the sound card. In order to "test line quality" of course.
It's called marriage. Wedded Bliss, remember?
Just try to get married and tell your wife that she won't have access to your account, and that she should only get to spend the money she makes. I've seen gunfights that started that way...
Clearly you are not married.
I used to be just like you. I could tell you the balance of my account to within 5 dollars just because I knew all the ins and outs.
Suddenly I'm married, and the word "Overdrawn" entered my vocabulary.
Imagine the dulcet tones of your wife saying, "How can we be overdrawn? I didn't spend that much when I was out shopping. Didn't I tell you I went shopping? What bills?"
All I know for certain is that since I got married, I've increased my earnings by a factor of 400%, and there's still no money in the account...
Sigh...
Tell me about it. After I reported it, they took three days to take it down. I'm so glad they're right on top of things.
For everyone screaming "If you hack the server..."
I've already seen this "next generation phishing" method used. I was on e-bay looking for a piece of autographed memorabilia. I noticed one auction and clicked on it. The E-Bay login screen popped up. I was about half-way through typing my password when it suddenly occured to me, "Wait a second, why do I have to enter my account to view an auction."
Careful review showed me that opening the auction had triggered some embedded javascript that opened a frame within the e-bay window that covered the whole base page, but presented a spoof of the e-bay login screen. The title bar still read as a legitimate e-bay address, the screen was a perfect dupe of the e-bay login screen. In short, it looked totally legitimate.
Now, they didn't have to hack e-bay's servers, nor did they have direct access to anything on e-bay's site. All they had to do was embed some javascript into an otherwise "secure" site.
I think that's what this article is talking about.
Oh, and I was running firefox with a javascript blocker, but since I've allowed scripts on e-bay (you can't even view most of the auctions without it) it happily ran the phishing script without even a warning.
Doctor Who of course. How? I'll explain later...
Gosh, you sure put me in my place. I must be the only one calling for the IPCC to fund bringing the proxies up to date. The fact that it is currently referred to as "The greatest scandal in climate science" and that a group of over 1,000 scientists with PhD's have called for the proxies to be updated is no excuse for my egotistical call for the same.
Clearly, asking for researchers to present all their data is a cruel, heartless, and unfair thing to do. The fact that Mann's last paper contained a folder in his data labeled "CENSORED" is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty, but merely a sign of protection from my own ignorance. That it required an act of Congress to make him publish his publicly funded data and methodology is clearly the way science should be done. I mean, that's not the exact same thing that you rabidly accuse the tobacco industry (rightly) of doing.
So, mea culpa, mea culpa.
Oh good. Method of CO2 change is irrelavent. So then, why worry about whether mankind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, it's irrelevant. And I thought that I was an anthropogenic global climate change skeptic.
Non sequitur. The mechanisms for changing CO2 levels are not well known. The IPCC recognizes over 20 carbon sources and sinks in the model, less than half of which are "well known". Tectonic uplift is a negligible contributor of Carbon sinks, in fact it's one of the less well known items, and likely has very little effect, as most rock is chemically stable, and any reaction with the atmosphere is usually as an O2 sink. Vulcanism tends to add massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere very rapidly (Mt. Pinatubo put something like ten times the CO2 output of every car in the U.S. into the atmosphere in a matter of minutes.) As for other sources...
Decomposition, animal digestion byproducts, burning, forest fires, CO2 outgassing from the ocean, CO2 outgassing from permafrost, CO2 outgassing from ancient peat bogs, and, of course, anthropogenic sources, such as the burning of fossil fuels, and others, like your tectonic changes.
Cabon sinks are also out there, CO2 dissolution into the oceans, atmospheric CO2 absorbtion by water vapor, plant growth, ocean planktons, ultraviolet breakdown of CO2 into carbonates, seashell formation, deep water sedimentation of plant matter, etc.
Very few of these rates are actually known. Some of them aren't known to better than 50% accuracy.
CO2 is an infrared absorbtive material. Wonderful. It will absorb infrared in the upper atmosphere, heating it and preventing convection of the heat from the surface to space (and that's the actual role of CO2, not the "glass cieling model taught in fifth grade science class.) So, temperatures in the upper atmosphere should be skyrocketing if CO2 is the cause of global warming. That's what every computer model shows.
Satellites, however, tell a different story. There is no upper atmospheric warming. So, what do scientists, those rational unbiased finders of fact, do? Why they just start saying, "We know it must be happening, so we'll add a "fudge factor" to those satellite readings, and then claim that we've solved the problem." Yeah, no bias there.
Too bad these guys weren't around in the 1000-1500 period when Berlin was the major exporter of Oranges in Europe.
...what do you expect - all the ice to melt in a few years?
Al Gore just told me I have ten years until the ice caps melt and Florida is under water. New York in 50 years, Half the U.S. by 2100. But in your world, it takes 800 years to melt a few glaciers a few percent. Who's right? Where's all that consensus I keep hearing about? And that's just the easy hole to poke in your "consensus" of climate science.
Oh, and the Antarctic ice cap is increasing in mass by more than the Artic ice cap is melting. Sorry again. (No citation, get off your own ass and look it up.)
You forgot to call me "Hitler".
I'm disappointed.
RealClimate blatantly states that it is based on the argument that for some unknown reason something besides CO2 causes 800 years of warming, and then suddenly that unknown cause goes away and CO2 causes 4200 years of warming, but then just stops causing warming when it's at it's highest concentration for no apparent reason and we drop into another ice age. Linking to non-reviewed papers by members of the team that produce the website isn't exactly what I call resounding proof.
...everything stops...
Also you demonstrate that you have no idea how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It does not "reflect back" the heat. If anything, it absorbs more heat in the upper atmoshphere, preventing it from ever reaching the ground. That additional heat slows convection which is the major method of heat dispersion in the atmosphere. It also requires that the upper atmosphere rise in temperature much faster than the lower atmosphere, which every computer climate model shows. However, it isn't happening in the real atmosphere, a fact which is blatantly overlooked by the climate prediction group.
So, in your model, we have a low CO2 atmosphere, which is warmed by a Milankovitch cycle. Over 800 years, the Earth thaws, and CO2 is added to the atmosphere, but incredibly slowly. It takes 800 years to bump up enough CO2 to reach a tipping point, where the sun becomes unimportant to the cycle and temperature starts to rise because of CO2, which causes more CO2 to flood into the atmosphere (although at the same slow rate, despite insistence by current climate scientists that CO2 increase causes a positive feedback and exponential heating.) Now the CO2 reaches its highest level of 10,000 years and...
The Earth plunges back into an ice age.
So, by this theory, warming isn't caused by CO2, but then it is, and then finally CO2 causes rapid cooling. So, if CO2 goes up, and it warms up, then CO2 causes global warming, but if CO2 goes up and it cools down, then CO2 causes global warming. If global warming is happening we'll have more hurricanes, if we have fewer hurricanes, that's because of global warming too. In other words, the theory is non-falsifiable. There's a name for non-falsifiable theories. It's called religion.
Sigh. In your own last paragraph, you contradict the first two. "man made carbon dioxide can cause carbon dioxide levels to change and precede warming effects" -- Okay, CO2 causes warming when it's man made, but -- "natural changes in carbon dioxide levels require warming to occur and thus lag behind warming events from other causes" -- so you agree with my original point. Mann is schizophrenic when it comes to CO2.
Those and anyone with a brain who understands just how flawed the current climate models are.
BY the way, you might want to look at this recent study http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=795#more-795 before holding out your climate models as some golden standard of wonderfulness.
Uhm, while Mann's team holds only a single undergrad degree in general statistics, their "oponents" McIntyre hold's a degree in pure mathematics and a doctorate in geology, and Ross McKittrick has a PhD in economics which we all know doesn't use any math. Oh, and their four papers have all been peer reviewed and approved, while Mann's "Hockey Stick" holds the distinction of being the first paper in twenty years for which Nature published a retraction because of all the errors in the paper.
I'm not ignoring the swing, I'm telling you that in the overall picture of things, a 0.28% change in greenhouse gasses is negligible compared to the estimated 1.3% variance in solar output measured during the last 40 years. But go ahead and focus on the wrong variable. I'm tired of the lack of anyone on this list to open their brain and actually search out *all* the data, including some that *isn't* reported in Popular Science magazine and the New York Times.
WHAT!
Water levels remain constant?!?
Are you insane?
Water levels in the atmosphere vary by 35% to 75% on a daily basis . Or is it always 72 degrees and partly cloudly in fantasyland where you live?
Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. It varies up to 75% on a day by day basis. Despite this major role in global temperature, climate scientists can't even agree if it is a positive or negative feedback system. Spare me the diatribe and do just a *tiny* bit of research into the problems of climate modeling.