True, but what that means is that other folks should always be looking for other theories that might better fit the data. Unfortunately, most of the folks on the other side seem to think that "unsettled" means "I can ignore this because it is inconvenient," which is not the same thing.
No, not at all. That's the strawman constructed and attacked. Go check out Watts Up With That, and you'll find 99.9% of the posters acknowledge some warming, but are skeptical that it is all man-made and it all comes from CO2. Rather, the appearance of trends as I linked tend to show a high likelihood that much of the warming is natural. So perhaps we need to re-think our priorities and budgetary allocations based upon data, rather than models that simply do not match the real world.
The problem is that their alternative explanations only fit the data over a very short period of time [skepticalscience.com], geologically speaking. These theories have been debunked repeatedly by trivial comparison with the actual data.
Actually, no. Not a single IPCC model accounts for the rise of temperature from 1890 to 1940, then the plunge from 1945 to 1975, let alone the general pause in the 2000s. However, there are models that correlate nicely with the past and also have predicted - more reliably than the IPCC models - the current 2000s. They come from geologists, though, not from climatologists. In fact, looking at past inter-glacial periods, we see a continual cyclic pattern of ever-increasing temperatures until the entire system "flips" into deep cooling. In other words - what we see today, is not unprecedented.
That said, there's a lot we don't know. It is possible (nay, almost certain) that we will eventually hit an equilibrium point at which more plants are growing, and the temperature change levels off.
When it levels off, that's when it starts falling. A few hundred million years says that's the way it happens. Typically glaciated over most of the Northern hemisphere, with occasional blips of warmth - like we have now.
The big unanswered questions are how many major cities will be underwater when it does, whether we will have enough arable land to feed the earth's population as temperatures and rain patterns shift, and whether the cost of reducing our greehouse gas emissions exceeds the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change over the long term. And *that* is where there is a lot of room for speculation, debate, etc.
Rather than sweat over something that has NOT been shown to be a cause of disaster (CO2 increases driving climate change), I fully agree with Bjorn Lomborg that we should look to spend our money on real, defined, understood problems.
Basically - no. We can test for a Santa Claus, since pretty much everything about the man says he physically manifests himself, slides down chimneys, and places presents under Christmas trees around the world. Since we have homes without chimneys but have presents that appear under the trees, and we have no video record, then it is most likely Santa Claus does not exist.
Now, how about a metaphysical higher power, that influences our emotions and impulses, who will only be seen after you are already dead? No tangible interference in the physical domain to document, strictly an emotive, internal "nudge" - the source of conscience, for example? How do you test for that?
Dr. Roy Spencer was a NASA scientist and worked at the University of Alabama Huntsville. No "global company" there. The satellite record is pretty straight-forward. Just because it doesn't fit with your concept doesn't mean it should be trashed; rather, we should continue looking for what is really happening, and try to understand why models often diverge from data. Look no further than my sig line, from Dr. Phil Jones, who lead the CRU Anglia, one of the biggest proponents of the IPCC models. The 1910-1940 warming was statistically the same as 1975-1998. Wouldn't that at least cause you a little pause to figure out how much of the heating we're seeing is natural, or even if it's real?
CSR/Qualcomm's AptX HD and Sony's LDAC both have the capability to transmit nearly 1 Mbps over Bluetooth. FLAC compression on a 24 bit/48k kHz stream can be supported in that bandwidth; FLAC compressed CD quality (16/44.1) can easily fit within the bandwidth. So yes, there is lossless Bluetooth audio, it's just lossless up to a certain point.
In fact, that's why so many audiophiles are excited about LDAC and AptX HD - you can now listen to lossless streaming audio from Tidal.com and HDTracks.
Here's more proof: iOS continues to lose market share and even in the US, all iOS devices now number about the same as just Samsung, one of multiple Android players. Was that from the headphone jack, or the general slide in iOS quality overall? I tend to think it's both, given the headphone market is continuing to explode and Apple basically locked themselves out of a vast majority of it.
they matter lots. You do know we use satellites to monitor climate change, right? You do realize he's in a position to control access to said satellites, right?
Explain to me why the U.S. is the ONLY country in the civilized world where religion and science are seen as contradictory and incompatible ?
They are? Pretty much the entire Ivy league is universities founded on religious principles, and those also were the model for places like Stanford. Most religious people have no problem with science; in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science. For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another, so thus the scientific method would require you acknowledge the possibility for existence of a higher power is equal to the probability there is not a higher power. A real scientist could be a believer (who will claim it on faith, and thus not scientifically provable) or an agnostic; never an atheist.
He seems to have a pretty good career and educational background to actually manage big organizations - and that's really what is needed. Department heads are NOT like CEOs; they don't have to set the big agenda (Congress does that), nor do they need to be charismatic to raise funds. They need to make sure money is spent as it is supposed to and that things operate efficiently. Congress sets what is funded, what is important; Mr. Bridenstine's role will be to make sure the money is spent appropriately and waste and fraud are kept to an absolute minimum
Take a look at this image. If someone says "the science is settled", then they are clearly NOT being scientific. At best you may have an idea, but to call it settled - when we're seeing the EXACT SAME THING repeating itself over 60 year cycles, is the antithesis of science.
Skepticism used to be the foundation of science; now it's badgered and attacked as "anti-science".
Too bad good Bluetooth and iOS are mutually exclusive; AptX, AptX HD, and LDAC (all near-lossless or lossless Bluetooth CODECs) do not run on iOS. Interestingly, the first two (AptX and AptX HD) do run on OSX. So it's not that Apple is not supportive of good Bluetooth; they just don't support it for portable devices.
There was a pretty significant spike that started after November 4th, 2016. The DJIA had been pretty darn flat for 2 years until the election - then it took off. Coincidence? Or was it investor confidence that caused the run-up since then?
So - President Obama had a hard-line with Chia-Head in North Korea, antagonizing the munchkin until he finally threw a tantrum - and realized he really was a munchkin? That the tax break passed was an Obama push? That actual deportations of illegal immigrants (the Obama Administration used to count "prevention at the border" as a deportation - which it clearly is not) are up because of President Obama?
Hey, don't forget the fact he's leaving more money in most of our pockets - except for the rich, who now lose their Federal tax breaks for State taxes... How dare he lower taxes for most and increase it for the rich!
Donna Brazile, giving questions to Hillary during the primaries, would be one obvious case. You do realize that Ms. Brazile worked for the Clintons during both of Bill's elections. Not to mention she not only led the DNC for a spell, but was the vice-chair AND chair of the DNC during the entire 2016 election. Having the leader of the party - and a member of the press, as well - giving debate questions to one candidate and not the other is about as insider-trading/conspiratorial as you can get. If that is not rigging the game - what is?
I am not suggesting that Democrats and Republicans should agree on policy issues. What I am talking about is a bipartisan denunciation of things that are a threat to democracy.
Outside influence in our elections should be a rallying point. This not only includes by foreign Governments, but non-citizens. We should require proof of citizenship before any vote is cast - correct? Or do you endorse outside influence (directly, in this case) of our elections?
Slashdot Mirror
True, but what that means is that other folks should always be looking for other theories that might better fit the data. Unfortunately, most of the folks on the other side seem to think that "unsettled" means "I can ignore this because it is inconvenient," which is not the same thing.
No, not at all. That's the strawman constructed and attacked. Go check out Watts Up With That, and you'll find 99.9% of the posters acknowledge some warming, but are skeptical that it is all man-made and it all comes from CO2. Rather, the appearance of trends as I linked tend to show a high likelihood that much of the warming is natural. So perhaps we need to re-think our priorities and budgetary allocations based upon data, rather than models that simply do not match the real world.
The problem is that their alternative explanations only fit the data over a very short period of time [skepticalscience.com], geologically speaking. These theories have been debunked repeatedly by trivial comparison with the actual data.
Actually, no. Not a single IPCC model accounts for the rise of temperature from 1890 to 1940, then the plunge from 1945 to 1975, let alone the general pause in the 2000s. However, there are models that correlate nicely with the past and also have predicted - more reliably than the IPCC models - the current 2000s. They come from geologists, though, not from climatologists. In fact, looking at past inter-glacial periods, we see a continual cyclic pattern of ever-increasing temperatures until the entire system "flips" into deep cooling. In other words - what we see today, is not unprecedented.
That said, there's a lot we don't know. It is possible (nay, almost certain) that we will eventually hit an equilibrium point at which more plants are growing, and the temperature change levels off.
When it levels off, that's when it starts falling. A few hundred million years says that's the way it happens. Typically glaciated over most of the Northern hemisphere, with occasional blips of warmth - like we have now.
The big unanswered questions are how many major cities will be underwater when it does, whether we will have enough arable land to feed the earth's population as temperatures and rain patterns shift, and whether the cost of reducing our greehouse gas emissions exceeds the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change over the long term. And *that* is where there is a lot of room for speculation, debate, etc.
Sea levels historically happened 4X faster than now, food production is skyrocketing, and there still isn't any real effect from increasing CO2.
Rather than sweat over something that has NOT been shown to be a cause of disaster (CO2 increases driving climate change), I fully agree with Bjorn Lomborg that we should look to spend our money on real, defined, understood problems.
Basically - no. We can test for a Santa Claus, since pretty much everything about the man says he physically manifests himself, slides down chimneys, and places presents under Christmas trees around the world. Since we have homes without chimneys but have presents that appear under the trees, and we have no video record, then it is most likely Santa Claus does not exist.
Now, how about a metaphysical higher power, that influences our emotions and impulses, who will only be seen after you are already dead? No tangible interference in the physical domain to document, strictly an emotive, internal "nudge" - the source of conscience, for example? How do you test for that?
Dr. Roy Spencer was a NASA scientist and worked at the University of Alabama Huntsville. No "global company" there. The satellite record is pretty straight-forward. Just because it doesn't fit with your concept doesn't mean it should be trashed; rather, we should continue looking for what is really happening, and try to understand why models often diverge from data. Look no further than my sig line, from Dr. Phil Jones, who lead the CRU Anglia, one of the biggest proponents of the IPCC models. The 1910-1940 warming was statistically the same as 1975-1998. Wouldn't that at least cause you a little pause to figure out how much of the heating we're seeing is natural, or even if it's real?
CSR/Qualcomm's AptX HD and Sony's LDAC both have the capability to transmit nearly 1 Mbps over Bluetooth. FLAC compression on a 24 bit/48k kHz stream can be supported in that bandwidth; FLAC compressed CD quality (16/44.1) can easily fit within the bandwidth. So yes, there is lossless Bluetooth audio, it's just lossless up to a certain point.
In fact, that's why so many audiophiles are excited about LDAC and AptX HD - you can now listen to lossless streaming audio from Tidal.com and HDTracks.
So where's your proof?
$1600 is the average cut. I know, bread crumbs to lots of rich, bay area liberals...
they matter lots. You do know we use satellites to monitor climate change, right? You do realize he's in a position to control access to said satellites, right?
You claim he's anti-science, because he's skeptical of AGW. You do know that those same satellites basically show that any heating is much, much less than modeled, right? So why would he turn off access?
Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels.
Apparently, it's not sea levels increasing but land subsiding and landfills settling. That's from a US Army Corp of Engineers report released in 2010.
Explain to me why the U.S. is the ONLY country in the civilized world where religion and science are seen as contradictory and incompatible ?
They are? Pretty much the entire Ivy league is universities founded on religious principles, and those also were the model for places like Stanford. Most religious people have no problem with science; in fact, it can be argued that strict atheism is, in fact anti-science. For you cannot prove the existence of a higher power one way or another, so thus the scientific method would require you acknowledge the possibility for existence of a higher power is equal to the probability there is not a higher power. A real scientist could be a believer (who will claim it on faith, and thus not scientifically provable) or an agnostic; never an atheist.
He seems to have a pretty good career and educational background to actually manage big organizations - and that's really what is needed. Department heads are NOT like CEOs; they don't have to set the big agenda (Congress does that), nor do they need to be charismatic to raise funds. They need to make sure money is spent as it is supposed to and that things operate efficiently. Congress sets what is funded, what is important; Mr. Bridenstine's role will be to make sure the money is spent appropriately and waste and fraud are kept to an absolute minimum
Take a look at this image. If someone says "the science is settled", then they are clearly NOT being scientific. At best you may have an idea, but to call it settled - when we're seeing the EXACT SAME THING repeating itself over 60 year cycles, is the antithesis of science.
Skepticism used to be the foundation of science; now it's badgered and attacked as "anti-science".
I see. So you do not want to ensure only citizens vote? Then why the concern over claimed Russian interference?
Too bad good Bluetooth and iOS are mutually exclusive; AptX, AptX HD, and LDAC (all near-lossless or lossless Bluetooth CODECs) do not run on iOS. Interestingly, the first two (AptX and AptX HD) do run on OSX. So it's not that Apple is not supportive of good Bluetooth; they just don't support it for portable devices.
The press didn't like it, and do you have any proof that people WANTED Apple to remove the number one means of connecting headphones to cell phones?
And to ensure you actually read the quote, it does say her personal e-mail account; what about the other accounts on the server?
42.
There was a pretty significant spike that started after November 4th, 2016. The DJIA had been pretty darn flat for 2 years until the election - then it took off. Coincidence? Or was it investor confidence that caused the run-up since then?
So - President Obama had a hard-line with Chia-Head in North Korea, antagonizing the munchkin until he finally threw a tantrum - and realized he really was a munchkin? That the tax break passed was an Obama push? That actual deportations of illegal immigrants (the Obama Administration used to count "prevention at the border" as a deportation - which it clearly is not) are up because of President Obama?
Hey, don't forget the fact he's leaving more money in most of our pockets - except for the rich, who now lose their Federal tax breaks for State taxes... How dare he lower taxes for most and increase it for the rich!
What evidence was used to start the investigation? Where did that evidence originate?
Donna Brazile, giving questions to Hillary during the primaries, would be one obvious case. You do realize that Ms. Brazile worked for the Clintons during both of Bill's elections. Not to mention she not only led the DNC for a spell, but was the vice-chair AND chair of the DNC during the entire 2016 election. Having the leader of the party - and a member of the press, as well - giving debate questions to one candidate and not the other is about as insider-trading/conspiratorial as you can get. If that is not rigging the game - what is?
So you're saying a lot of Trump voters were disgruntled Bernie voters? Seriously?
I am not suggesting that Democrats and Republicans should agree on policy issues. What I am talking about is a bipartisan denunciation of things that are a threat to democracy.
Outside influence in our elections should be a rallying point. This not only includes by foreign Governments, but non-citizens. We should require proof of citizenship before any vote is cast - correct? Or do you endorse outside influence (directly, in this case) of our elections?
The FBI says it was hacked...
Germany and France require citizenship to vote...