No the real issue is why if its not getting warmer are all the glaciers melting? To heck with the temperature data. If its not getting warmer why are we seeing so much melting everywhere on the planet?
So you must be able to explain, why if its not getting warmer, all the world's glaicers are melting? I still can't seem to get a single AWG denier to explain how this could be happening. Why is that?
Forget Spencer, he doesn't seem to be able to explain why if its not getting hotter all the world's glaciers are rapidly disappearing. Perhaps you are finally ready to provide an explanation? How can all that ice be melting faster and faster if its not getting hotter?
One would be hard pressed to entertain such fantasy given the obvious slowing of the jet stream caused by the decreasing differential between arctic and mid latitude temperatures.
Clouds are particularly relevant except to local climate as explained above and elsewhere because water vapor goes in and out of the This atmosphere very quickly relative to the prolonged forcing effects of carbon dioxide which remains in the atmosphere for far longer time periods.
The world's "thermostat", if such a crude analogy actually exists, is the oceans and the current and wind patterns over and within them. This is why ENSO is such a big deal.
Ocean temperatures, where the bulk of the warming has occurred, show no pause in warming between 1998 and 2013. However, stronger Pacific winds definitely have shunted much of the heat from the atmosphere to the ocean during that period. The reality is that there hasn't been any "pause" in global warming.
Don't forget to mention that a very sizable proportions of those emissions results from Chinese factories owned by US corporations and producing products that are consumed by Americans. One can't credibly complain about the Chinese and then simultaneously shop at WalMart or just about any store where Chinese manufactured goods are sold.
Lets suspend the inconsequential dialog about what people may or may not believe and just try to explain why it is, if its not getting hotter, virtually all the world's glaciers and all the world's ice caps and ice shields are melting? How can this happen if its not getting warmer?
This may or may not be true. Much of the soils in these regions is incredibly poor and because even with global warming, one will still have seasons. Most plants typically consumed by humans will not be able to grow well in high latitudes even if it is warmer because they will not get sufficient sunlight for a sufficiently long growing season to occur (not to mention that many pollinators may no longer be present in the wild).
"ocean acidification is a worse problem than global warming anyways."
These are really both consequences of the same phenomenon, increasing carbon dioxide concentrations due to the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, the time to reverse the effects of a lower oceanic pH will be on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, not that it will matter much to humans should we let it get that far along. Already oyster farming is under threat and fish distributions are rapidly changing. Considering that humans acquire about 50% of all protein consumed from the oceans, this is an especially big problem for top predators like Homo sapiens.
The Earth itself can accommodate dramatic swings in temperature and shifts in climate. Most organisms can not. California produces about 60% of all fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. The current drought believed now to be the worst in 580 years is by all indications exacerbated by climate change. Rapid fluctuations in climate are likewise dramatically affecting agricultural productivity and the availability of water or excess water are both harmful to agriculture. This means that we humans are about to face a substantial drop in available foodstuffs, if climatologists are correct. Of course, if you don't eat either plants or animals, then you can ignore the consequences of a rapidly warming world.
You claim, without justification, that "All the geologic evidence points to a risk for run-away cooling," However, if this were true, then please explain why it is that virtually every single glacier on the planet that has been studied by geologists are simultaneously receding at rates often far in excess of any recession in recent geological history? If its not getting warmer, why are all the glaciers and icecaps and ice shields over the entire planet disappearing so rapidly?
What other natural causes could explain the rapid increases of ocean temperatures? Variance in solar insolation is far too small. There are not anywhere near enough hidden volcanoes to account for the increases? Why do people say there are other natural causes besides human induced increased of carbon dioxide, yet never provide any credible evidence of such causes?
"My god. By 2012 the average summer temperature in Baltimore would be 155F."
Thank Neptune for the oceans. If they weren't absorbing most of the heat being retained as carbon dioxide builds in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, this also means that we must soon prepare ourselves for alterations of ocean currents over time, which will be tremendous drivers of atmospheric currents and surface temperatures. Because ocean currents are far less studied and understood than atmospheric circulation, much of the uncertainty in modeling of global climate change results from a lack of data concerning the changing patterns of heat distribution of oceanic waters. However, if you look at the distribution and perturbation of marine organisms, there is abundant evidence that the oceans are changing very quickly, as well as acidifying rapidly.
I should have also added that if you have evidence that horizontal transfer of genetic information has occurred then you probably already have information about the distinctiveness of two putative species. Otherwise, how would you tell?
Frenkel is a mathematician, not a scientist. There is a profound difference. The problem here is that Frenkel is making the same kind of claims that were shown to create certain logical inconsistencies in naive set theory by making statements about sets that are "too big", which create certain propositions that can not be decided from within mathematics. Personally, I think Frenkel is well aware of this and is just having fun with the media.
I am surprised that a mathematician as eminent as Edward Frenkel would say " Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one", and then go on to reason that because there are more an more "simulations" it is probable that we are living in one. As he well knows, probabilistic spaces are metric and proofs that apply to metric spaces do not necessarily apply to more general topological spaces. Although there are infinities that are countable, such as those for statistics involving Hilbert spaces, there are also many kinds of inifinities that are uncountable, so just because there may be more of such simulations all the time need not imply that we are living in one.
I think it is likely that Professor Frenkel is having some fun with his insufficiently knowledgeable audience.
Lets face it, if you want security, its best to deliver your messages by hand or don't bother to communicate them at all. That said this should give a boost to Cisco as their business has suffered considerably in overseas markets as a result of NSA spying, not that they could do much about it. Cisco and many US manufacturers will probably now have to more heavily involve other country's IT professionals in the design, fabrication, and use of router and switch hardware to overcome fears of foreign consumers now. This of course, is a big loss to US IT personnel not to mention Cisco shareholders. In time, however, they should be OK as its not as if anyone can keep their hands clean, if governments want to be in the hacking business, so the spying just puts everyone at a disadvantage, since ultimately it costs everyone more to be part of the race to keep up.
that some of the world's most eminent mathematicians and scientists are crackpots simply because they have been from Berkeley. No wonder you post as an Anonymous Coward.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget Spencer. Can anyone explain to me why, if its not getting warmer, are all the glaciers melting?
No the real issue is why if its not getting warmer are all the glaciers melting? To heck with the temperature data. If its not getting warmer why are we seeing so much melting everywhere on the planet?
So you must be able to explain, why if its not getting warmer, all the world's glaicers are melting? I still can't seem to get a single AWG denier to explain how this could be happening. Why is that?
Forget Spencer, he doesn't seem to be able to explain why if its not getting hotter all the world's glaciers are rapidly disappearing. Perhaps you are finally ready to provide an explanation? How can all that ice be melting faster and faster if its not getting hotter?
" But polar albedo isn't where the action is"
One would be hard pressed to entertain such fantasy given the obvious slowing of the jet stream caused by the decreasing differential between arctic and mid latitude temperatures.
Clouds are particularly relevant except to local climate as explained above and elsewhere because water vapor goes in and out of the This atmosphere very quickly relative to the prolonged forcing effects of carbon dioxide which remains in the atmosphere for far longer time periods.
The world's "thermostat", if such a crude analogy actually exists, is the oceans and the current and wind patterns over and within them. This is why ENSO is such a big deal.
Ocean temperatures, where the bulk of the warming has occurred, show no pause in warming between 1998 and 2013. However, stronger Pacific winds definitely have shunted much of the heat from the atmosphere to the ocean during that period. The reality is that there hasn't been any "pause" in global warming.
Don't forget to mention that a very sizable proportions of those emissions results from Chinese factories owned by US corporations and producing products that are consumed by Americans. One can't credibly complain about the Chinese and then simultaneously shop at WalMart or just about any store where Chinese manufactured goods are sold.
Lets suspend the inconsequential dialog about what people may or may not believe and just try to explain why it is, if its not getting hotter, virtually all the world's glaciers and all the world's ice caps and ice shields are melting? How can this happen if its not getting warmer?
This may or may not be true. Much of the soils in these regions is incredibly poor and because even with global warming, one will still have seasons. Most plants typically consumed by humans will not be able to grow well in high latitudes even if it is warmer because they will not get sufficient sunlight for a sufficiently long growing season to occur (not to mention that many pollinators may no longer be present in the wild).
"ocean acidification is a worse problem than global warming anyways."
These are really both consequences of the same phenomenon, increasing carbon dioxide concentrations due to the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, the time to reverse the effects of a lower oceanic pH will be on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, not that it will matter much to humans should we let it get that far along. Already oyster farming is under threat and fish distributions are rapidly changing. Considering that humans acquire about 50% of all protein consumed from the oceans, this is an especially big problem for top predators like Homo sapiens.
The Earth itself can accommodate dramatic swings in temperature and shifts in climate. Most organisms can not. California produces about 60% of all fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. The current drought believed now to be the worst in 580 years is by all indications exacerbated by climate change. Rapid fluctuations in climate are likewise dramatically affecting agricultural productivity and the availability of water or excess water are both harmful to agriculture. This means that we humans are about to face a substantial drop in available foodstuffs, if climatologists are correct. Of course, if you don't eat either plants or animals, then you can ignore the consequences of a rapidly warming world.
You claim, without justification, that "All the geologic evidence points to a risk for run-away cooling," However, if this were true, then please explain why it is that virtually every single glacier on the planet that has been studied by geologists are simultaneously receding at rates often far in excess of any recession in recent geological history? If its not getting warmer, why are all the glaciers and icecaps and ice shields over the entire planet disappearing so rapidly?
What other natural causes could explain the rapid increases of ocean temperatures? Variance in solar insolation is far too small. There are not anywhere near enough hidden volcanoes to account for the increases? Why do people say there are other natural causes besides human induced increased of carbon dioxide, yet never provide any credible evidence of such causes?
"My god. By 2012 the average summer temperature in Baltimore would be 155F."
Thank Neptune for the oceans. If they weren't absorbing most of the heat being retained as carbon dioxide builds in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, this also means that we must soon prepare ourselves for alterations of ocean currents over time, which will be tremendous drivers of atmospheric currents and surface temperatures. Because ocean currents are far less studied and understood than atmospheric circulation, much of the uncertainty in modeling of global climate change results from a lack of data concerning the changing patterns of heat distribution of oceanic waters. However, if you look at the distribution and perturbation of marine organisms, there is abundant evidence that the oceans are changing very quickly, as well as acidifying rapidly.
I should have also added that if you have evidence that horizontal transfer of genetic information has occurred then you probably already have information about the distinctiveness of two putative species. Otherwise, how would you tell?
Yes, this approach makes far more sense for bacteria, whose phenotype is not that far removed from its genotype.
With NSF grants being as competitive as they are these days, don't start giving them ideas.
Frenkel is a mathematician, not a scientist. There is a profound difference. The problem here is that Frenkel is making the same kind of claims that were shown to create certain logical inconsistencies in naive set theory by making statements about sets that are "too big", which create certain propositions that can not be decided from within mathematics. Personally, I think Frenkel is well aware of this and is just having fun with the media.
I don't know about that, but if this is a simulation then could someone please tell me where I can find the reboot switch? I want out.
Perhaps, but did they copyright the code?
I am surprised that a mathematician as eminent as Edward Frenkel would say " Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one", and then go on to reason that because there are more an more "simulations" it is probable that we are living in one. As he well knows, probabilistic spaces are metric and proofs that apply to metric spaces do not necessarily apply to more general topological spaces. Although there are infinities that are countable, such as those for statistics involving Hilbert spaces, there are also many kinds of inifinities that are uncountable, so just because there may be more of such simulations all the time need not imply that we are living in one.
I think it is likely that Professor Frenkel is having some fun with his insufficiently knowledgeable audience.
Lets face it, if you want security, its best to deliver your messages by hand or don't bother to communicate them at all. That said this should give a boost to Cisco as their business has suffered considerably in overseas markets as a result of NSA spying, not that they could do much about it. Cisco and many US manufacturers will probably now have to more heavily involve other country's IT professionals in the design, fabrication, and use of router and switch hardware to overcome fears of foreign consumers now. This of course, is a big loss to US IT personnel not to mention Cisco shareholders. In time, however, they should be OK as its not as if anyone can keep their hands clean, if governments want to be in the hacking business, so the spying just puts everyone at a disadvantage, since ultimately it costs everyone more to be part of the race to keep up.
Perhaps they should talk to the oil company CEO who lives next door.
the Earth will have overheated and so thoroughly polluted with toxic pesticides that life will become impossible.
Corporations should have the right to spew as much toxic pesticide into the environment as they want.
that some of the world's most eminent mathematicians and scientists are crackpots simply because they have been from Berkeley. No wonder you post as an Anonymous Coward.