I am shocked, shocked to discover that islands on an unstable delta in India can sink under their own weight into the ocean. This has clearly never happened before and George W Bush is clearly to blame.
Clearly if Bush had signed the Kyoto death pact, and if the Senate which had voted 95-0 in 1998 had let him, then these islands would still be here and, for good measure, the earth will have been cooled by an astonishing and completely unmeasureable 0.07C by 2050.
We will now see the Slashdot approach to group censorship take effect. Your rights online?
On a recent nationwide test to measure their technological 'literacy' -- their ability to use the Internet to complete class assignments -- only 49 percent of the test-takers correctly evaluated a set of Web sites for objectivity, authority and timeliness. Only 35 percent could correctly narrow an overly broad Internet search.
If you think that's bad, just wait for Generation W(ikipedia). Ignorance is strength.
The great bulk of Antarctica has been cooling over the last 50 years and the major icesheets are growing. The only bit that has warmed is the Antarctic Peninsula, which has warmed by 3-4C
This looks like a typical predator population crash.
I was referring to a hypothetical post, not that one. In general the people who get a lot of negative mods do one of these things:
* Have political beliefs that add up to Naziism.
* Speak with such horrendous grammar that reading the post is horrendously hard.
* Forget how to use paragraphs, making your posts unreadable.
Then criticizing Wikipedia must be something like Nazism, because I get modded down a lot for taking on the Wikiphiles.
And back before about 1940 the only people who weren't fucking worshipping Hitler and Mussolini were the fucking Communists.
Your grasp of history is as strong as your grasp of logic. I bet you've never even seen a concentration camp or met a survivor of the Holocaust. I have.
But that doesn't matter when you've got an argument to win on Slashdot, you brave man.
You think the Chinese government is bad for censorship? Just try criticizing Wikipedia on Slashdot and watch Marxism in action as the mod points are taken away.
In point of fact, it's Wikipedia that is more Marxist than the Chinese state. Try reading wikipediareview.com or antisocialmedia.net to see how NPOV Wikipedia really is.
This is what I want to know. If fusion had occurred (and I doubt it, but still...) then there would have been a burst of neutrons. If he was near enough to the experiment to see a ball of plasma then he's very lucky to be alive.
One of the first skeptical reviews of Pons and Fleischmann's claims about cold fusion was noting that there was no heavy shielding around the apparatus. No shielding + P&F still alive = no fusion.
That same pressure cell which is pulling up cold antarctic air for us is also dumping plenty of warm air down there as winds on the other side of the cell push north to south, which will of course lead to more melting.
Fascinating. How would it cause more melting if its still well below zero down there?
This paper predicts (as do many solar scientists) that the next two solar cycles will be much weaker than has happened for more than 100 years. If that happens the temperature will drop an average 1.5C which is what happened during the "Dalton Minimum".
That cool enough for you?
In 20 years time, they'll be praying for global warming.
This has gone a long way from polar bears, but its clear you play fast and loose with the facts when its suits you.
Climateaudit.org shouldn't be trusted anymore than you can comfortably spit out a rat.
Really? Because it simply questions that which you take on faith? What a shame! Its a shame that neither the NAS Panel nor the Wegman Report had any criticism of Steve McIntyre's results - strange, that.
"In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century"
No he didn't. In 1988 he presented three scenarios, A, B and C to Congress. Scenario A had exponential growth of greenhouse gases and no large volcanic eruptions. Scenario B had an increasing level of global warming and one large volcanic eruption in the intervening period and was labelled "most plausible" at the presentation. Observed temperatures since 1988 have been a reasonable match with Scenario B. Climate change deniers presented the graph with B and C erased.
No they haven't. You see now you're just lying for effect. There's no attempt to come to grips with your belief system. The quotation given was from an article in the UK Daily Telegraph - there's no evidence of endorsement of that phrase, but even so Hansen presented all three scenarios as equally valid and the real temperature didn't even climb as high as scenario C.
Have *you* checked you haven't been misled?
I have checked. I actually have done some of the legwork and some of the math. That's why I know when you're determined to run away you'll mine my quotations looking for something to throw back at me, while producing nothing in return.
Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjures up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust.
Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. Let those who would make such an allusion instead be absolutely explicit about their assertion of moral equivalency between Holocaust deniers and those that they criticize.
This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system.
Let's declare a moratorium on the phrases "climate change denier" and "climate change denial." Let's invoke the equivalent of Godwin's Law in discourse on climate policy. Maybe call it the Prometheus Principle.
No more invocation of "climate change deniers."
Of course, if you're desperate then invoking the Holocaust is a good way of deflecting attention, isn't it? After all 6 million Jews and many others died horrible deaths so you can go one up on some commenter on Slashdot.
And this issue was fixed too. What are you on about? Where is the evidence that mistakes aren't fixed even when they are discovered?
The problem is that sometimes the crap is put there by administrators and woe betide anyone who tries to fix it.
Rush Limbaugh once made the claim that we have satellites that can detect the effect of the moon on global temperatures yet can't actually detect the supposed global warming. So, your statement that "no skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer" does not hold up. Furthermore, your claim about the 30's being the hottest in the 20th century was what I was directly addressing.
Fuck Limbaugh. He's not a skeptic - he's an extreme rightwing nutjob.
As far as the satellites are concerned, there is a slight warming during the satellite era (since 1979) which is significant. If the El Nino year of 1998 is removed, the warming trend disappears. Interestingly only the Northern Hemosphere has warmed. The Southern Hemisphere has not changed at all in that time and practically all of Antarctica, other than the Peninsula, has cooled for the last 50 years.
I did NOT say that anything about just the satellite record - I said (with emphasis this time) "No skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer than it has been for 400 years (since the Little Ice Age)" and I pointed to just such a person who had denied that very thing.
Secondly, "polar amplification of global warming" and "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" are not the same thing
I never said that they were. Is it just a tactic to make claims about things I have not said? In any case, the uses of "global warming" and "anthropogenic global warming" are used indistinguishably and interchangeably. In the former case, everyone agrees what temperatures generally have risen, in the latter case it's a matter of faith and dogma that it must be man-made, partially or wholly, without any reference or credence given to the natural variation of climate.
The clear prediction of man-made global warming through anthropogenic greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, that the poles should warm much quicker than the tropics has not been borne out by direct experimental evidence. In normal times (whenever they are), an experimental result like that would cause people to wonder about the truth of the Greenhouse theory, but these aren't normal times, are they?
Finally, if you're calling me an "alarmist", then you either haven't read what I've posted very carefully, or you have a very weak definition of "alarmist" - something akin to "realist", I reckon. I do believe that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, but that's more because I'm not a terrorism "alarmist" than it is because I'm exaggerating the threat of global warming.
There's nothing realistic about claiming that the sky if falling, and I expect (unrealistically?) to get more concrete evidence than the acorn in your tail feathers being overwhelming evidence of atmospheric descent.
There's nothing realistic about global warming being a bigger threat than terrorism - its simply ridiculous on its face, a piece of hyperbole by David King that no-one credibly believes it to be true. Past global warmings have been extremely beneficial - it's the cooling periods where things come apart, societies, kingdoms, foodchains.
In short, you are an alarmist believer in a modern-day Apocalyptic scare. I called correctly.
That's the funny thing about climate change alarmists: they don't even bother to read the citations they've given. Here's the conclusion [my emphasis]:
We examine arctic variability using long-term records of SAT from the maritime Arctic poleward of 62N, fast-ice thickness from ve locations o the Siberian coast, and ice extent in arctic marginal seas. Arctic atmosphere and ice variability is dominated by multi-decadal variability, which is exceptionally strong in the northern polar region, probably because of its proximity to the North Atlantic, which is believed to be the origin of the LFO. The highly variable behavior of arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of largeamplitude multidecadal fluctuations. Trends for LFO-modulated arctic air-temperatures are generally larger than northern-hemispheric trends, but over the 125 year record we can identify periods when arctic SAT trends were actually smaller or of dierent sign than northern-hemispheric trends. Arctic and northern-hemispheric air-temperature trends over the 20th century, when multidecadal variability had little net eect on computed trends, are similar and do not support the hypothesis of the polar amplication of global warming simulated by GCMs. It has been hypothesized that this may be due to the moderating role of arctic ice. Evaluation of fast-ice melt required to compensate for the two-fold enhancement of polar warming simulated by GCMs shows that the required ice-decay rate would be statistically indistinguishable from zero, given the substantial intrinsic variability observed in the data. Observed long-term trends in arctic air temperature and ice cover are actually smaller than expected, and may be indicative of complex positive and negative feedbacks in the arctic climate system. In summary, if we accept that long-term SAT trends are a reasonable measure of climate change, then we conclude that the data do not support the hypothesized polar amplication of global warming.
Oh and by the way, no skeptic I know of has ever argued that climate does not change. Instead they argue that climate has always changed and that natural variation of climate is much larger than people think. No skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer than it has been for 400 years (since the Little Ice Age), but its easy to spot the real climate change deniers who claimed even last year that the Little Ice Age was not a global phenomenon. There's only one side that has been claiming that natural variation is slight and its not the so-called "skeptics".
Slashdot Mirror
I am shocked, shocked to discover that islands on an unstable delta in India can sink under their own weight into the ocean. This has clearly never happened before and George W Bush is clearly to blame.
Clearly if Bush had signed the Kyoto death pact, and if the Senate which had voted 95-0 in 1998 had let him, then these islands would still be here and, for good measure, the earth will have been cooled by an astonishing and completely unmeasureable 0.07C by 2050.
We will now see the Slashdot approach to group censorship take effect. Your rights online?
On a recent nationwide test to measure their technological 'literacy' -- their ability to use the Internet to complete class assignments -- only 49 percent of the test-takers correctly evaluated a set of Web sites for objectivity, authority and timeliness. Only 35 percent could correctly narrow an overly broad Internet search.
If you think that's bad, just wait for Generation W(ikipedia). Ignorance is strength.
Thanks.
It's the only Shuttle mission I care about.
The great bulk of Antarctica has been cooling over the last 50 years and the major icesheets are growing. The only bit that has warmed is the Antarctic Peninsula, which has warmed by 3-4C
This looks like a typical predator population crash.
When is the Hubble service mission going to happen?
How can it be a positive feedback loop? If the Arctic Ice were to disappear then the loop would be broken.
Q: how did life on Earth ever survive without the Ice Caps we think are so important?
That makes what they talk about untrue? How? Because they dare to criticize with reference to facts?
Just what is it about Wikipedia that makes it immune to criticism? It can't be anything to do with the quality of the articles.
The last completely bug-free software I saw was Hello World.
Really? The last time I ran "Hello World" a virus did a low level format of my hard disk...or was that "ILOVEU"???
I was referring to a hypothetical post, not that one. In general the people who get a lot of negative mods do one of these things:
* Have political beliefs that add up to Naziism.
* Speak with such horrendous grammar that reading the post is horrendously hard.
* Forget how to use paragraphs, making your posts unreadable.
Then criticizing Wikipedia must be something like Nazism, because I get modded down a lot for taking on the Wikiphiles.
And back before about 1940 the only people who weren't fucking worshipping Hitler and Mussolini were the fucking Communists.
Your grasp of history is as strong as your grasp of logic. I bet you've never even seen a concentration camp or met a survivor of the Holocaust. I have.
But that doesn't matter when you've got an argument to win on Slashdot, you brave man.
Just because you got modded down for supporting Naziism doesn't mean that they're censoring your opinions
Opposing Marxism makes me a supporter of Nazism?
Bravo! You're a well poisoning genius!
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
You think the Chinese government is bad for censorship? Just try criticizing Wikipedia on Slashdot and watch Marxism in action as the mod points are taken away.
In point of fact, it's Wikipedia that is more Marxist than the Chinese state. Try reading wikipediareview.com or antisocialmedia.net to see how NPOV Wikipedia really is.
Actually the opposite of an expert pretty much covers most of Wikipedia.
...there should be an entire twenty-volume set of all the mistakes that Novell have made and continue to make.
This is what I want to know. If fusion had occurred (and I doubt it, but still...) then there would have been a burst of neutrons. If he was near enough to the experiment to see a ball of plasma then he's very lucky to be alive.
One of the first skeptical reviews of Pons and Fleischmann's claims about cold fusion was noting that there was no heavy shielding around the apparatus. No shielding + P&F still alive = no fusion.
Yes, but make sure the book runs Linux first.
If I had mod points then your reply would get -10 "Handwaving argument"
None of your supposed evidence answers the question why the SH is not warming (according to the satellite record).
That same pressure cell which is pulling up cold antarctic air for us is also dumping plenty of warm air down there as winds on the other side of the cell push north to south, which will of course lead to more melting.
Fascinating. How would it cause more melting if its still well below zero down there?
This paper predicts (as do many solar scientists) that the next two solar cycles will be much weaker than has happened for more than 100 years. If that happens the temperature will drop an average 1.5C which is what happened during the "Dalton Minimum".
That cool enough for you?
In 20 years time, they'll be praying for global warming.
The theory is that pollution is greatly masking the effects of global warming
Then why is there warming in the smokey Northern Hemisphere and none at all in the Southern Hemisphere?
We now wait for the traditional round of excuses.
Or can anyone else see a small dark oblong in the middle of the picture? Kind of like a monolith...
It looks as though someone is making money and its not the old Chinese guys who are making the biggest profits.
Climateaudit.org shouldn't be trusted anymore than you can comfortably spit out a rat.
Really? Because it simply questions that which you take on faith? What a shame! Its a shame that neither the NAS Panel nor the Wegman Report had any criticism of Steve McIntyre's results - strange, that.
"In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century"
No he didn't. In 1988 he presented three scenarios, A, B and C to Congress. Scenario A had exponential growth of greenhouse gases and no large volcanic eruptions. Scenario B had an increasing level of global warming and one large volcanic eruption in the intervening period and was labelled "most plausible" at the presentation. Observed temperatures since 1988 have been a reasonable match with Scenario B. Climate change deniers presented the graph with B and C erased.
No they haven't. You see now you're just lying for effect. There's no attempt to come to grips with your belief system. The quotation given was from an article in the UK Daily Telegraph - there's no evidence of endorsement of that phrase, but even so Hansen presented all three scenarios as equally valid and the real temperature didn't even climb as high as scenario C.
Have *you* checked you haven't been misled?
I have checked. I actually have done some of the legwork and some of the math. That's why I know when you're determined to run away you'll mine my quotations looking for something to throw back at me, while producing nothing in return.
Oh and get over the use of "climate change denier" already. Even Roger Pielke has had enough of that one:
Of course, if you're desperate then invoking the Holocaust is a good way of deflecting attention, isn't it? After all 6 million Jews and many others died horrible deaths so you can go one up on some commenter on Slashdot.
Get over yourself.
And this issue was fixed too. What are you on about? Where is the evidence that mistakes aren't fixed even when they are discovered? The problem is that sometimes the crap is put there by administrators and woe betide anyone who tries to fix it.
Rush Limbaugh once made the claim that we have satellites that can detect the effect of the moon on global temperatures yet can't actually detect the supposed global warming. So, your statement that "no skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer" does not hold up. Furthermore, your claim about the 30's being the hottest in the 20th century was what I was directly addressing.
Fuck Limbaugh. He's not a skeptic - he's an extreme rightwing nutjob.
As far as the satellites are concerned, there is a slight warming during the satellite era (since 1979) which is significant. If the El Nino year of 1998 is removed, the warming trend disappears. Interestingly only the Northern Hemosphere has warmed. The Southern Hemisphere has not changed at all in that time and practically all of Antarctica, other than the Peninsula, has cooled for the last 50 years.
I did NOT say that anything about just the satellite record - I said (with emphasis this time) "No skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer than it has been for 400 years (since the Little Ice Age)" and I pointed to just such a person who had denied that very thing.
Secondly, "polar amplification of global warming" and "global warming" or "anthropogenic global warming" are not the same thing
I never said that they were. Is it just a tactic to make claims about things I have not said? In any case, the uses of "global warming" and "anthropogenic global warming" are used indistinguishably and interchangeably. In the former case, everyone agrees what temperatures generally have risen, in the latter case it's a matter of faith and dogma that it must be man-made, partially or wholly, without any reference or credence given to the natural variation of climate.
The clear prediction of man-made global warming through anthropogenic greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, that the poles should warm much quicker than the tropics has not been borne out by direct experimental evidence. In normal times (whenever they are), an experimental result like that would cause people to wonder about the truth of the Greenhouse theory, but these aren't normal times, are they?
Finally, if you're calling me an "alarmist", then you either haven't read what I've posted very carefully, or you have a very weak definition of "alarmist" - something akin to "realist", I reckon. I do believe that global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, but that's more because I'm not a terrorism "alarmist" than it is because I'm exaggerating the threat of global warming.
There's nothing realistic about claiming that the sky if falling, and I expect (unrealistically?) to get more concrete evidence than the acorn in your tail feathers being overwhelming evidence of atmospheric descent.
There's nothing realistic about global warming being a bigger threat than terrorism - its simply ridiculous on its face, a piece of hyperbole by David King that no-one credibly believes it to be true. Past global warmings have been extremely beneficial - it's the cooling periods where things come apart, societies, kingdoms, foodchains.
In short, you are an alarmist believer in a modern-day Apocalyptic scare. I called correctly.
Oh and by the way, no skeptic I know of has ever argued that climate does not change. Instead they argue that climate has always changed and that natural variation of climate is much larger than people think. No skeptic has ever claimed that climate is not currently warmer than it has been for 400 years (since the Little Ice Age), but its easy to spot the real climate change deniers who claimed even last year that the Little Ice Age was not a global phenomenon. There's only one side that has been claiming that natural variation is slight and its not the so-called "skeptics".