My windows 7 is barely usable with 4 gigs, limited by 32 bitness.
74 posts • joined 15 Feb 2011
My windows 7 is barely usable with 4 gigs, limited by 32 bitness.
1) Urban stations are individually adjusted to remove the urban heat island effect, based on trends in other local weather stations which are not part of the network. (Denialists know this; this is part of the "The data is worthless because its adjusted" bleat of the denier. They assert that adjusted data is worthless, and likewise if the data is not adjusted then it is worthless, as here because of the UHIs)
"Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000." http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#2221
2) It's not a oneway process where the monitoring station has become hotter because of more pavement, fewer trees, etc.; in many cases the monitoring station's location has become a park, or has become shadowed by buildings, tree growth, etc. Thus the individual adjustments above.
"Using satellite night-lights-derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions." http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252960119_Assessment_of_Urban_Versus_Rural_In_Situ_Surface_Temperatures_in_the_Contiguous_United_States_No_Difference_Found
3) Neither well established urban areas, nor areas which are currently becoming urbanized show a UHI trend that explains the scale of the AGW recorded:
"We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/abstract
You're saying that there is no melting of the land ice in the Antarctic, from your deep theoretical understanding ("but to melt the ice; the air temperature has to be > 0C."), despite every scientific measure, despite photographic evidence of the antarctic glaciers shrinking. Wow.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242/ All lies, I take it?
"Yet, you claim CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere. Since you're off by 10x on this easily-checked fact, readers will be unlikely to take your other claims seriously."
Once you've made up your mind CO2 doesn't make a difference, it might as well be 400%, you're still going to say it makes no difference.
Everything has "approaching-infinite variables."
Yet the tidal charts seem fairly accurate despite the unknown effects of objects in the Kuyper belt, for one instance.
At some point, a model is accurate enough for the intended use. This is true for all models, for all uses. I can drive a car without having to consider relativistic effects, nor quantum uncertainty.
I can estimate the average temperature for this region next July, despite the approaching-infinite variables involved there.
You really don't understand radiative forcing.
"our currently stable negative forcing environment "
What does that mean?
" A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation and the concentrations of radiatively active gases, commonly known as greenhouse gases and aerosols."
"CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere it has no effect on global temps "
It's been known for a century that the earth is approximately 33 degrees C warmer than the solar energy received can account for. Compare to the temperature of the moon, for instance, adjusting for different albedo.
"The global average mean surface temperature of the earth is 288 K (Table
2.1). Above we deduced that the emission temperature of the Earth is 255K,
considerably lower."-2.3 The greenhouse effect http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/Lectures/chap2.pdf
"The Earth has a moderate greenhouse effect which increases the surface
temperature by some 40 K over the blackbody temperature." http://www.astro.uvic.ca/~venn/A201/maths.7.planet_temperature.pdf
Have you ever tried your experiment?
Sure... it's too hard to believe that CO2 absorbs energy even though you can demonstrate it in the lab, it's much easier to believe the earth suddenly tipped over in its rotation for no particular reason, without anybody noticing, no coriolis effects, no gyroscopic effects.
Well, we've got the warming is because the earth tipped over, the sun's getting warmer, sunspots are keeping cosmic rays from forming clouds to cool us, volcanoes, and the earth isn't getting warmer after all. Yep, that "can't be CO2" theory just keeps getting better and better.
How does the Antarctic ice increase if the earth is a closed system?
Gee, do you think it's associated with the years of drought experienced in the US Southwest, and the Middle East; and the existence of a device called a "cold trap" which you use to dehumidify air, by passing it over a cold surface so that the water vapor freezes out?
Or does your understanding of global warming make you think that Antarctica is now significantly warmer than the freezing point of water?
fer crissakes, the Antarctic land ice has melted to the point where it's affecting the earth's gravity.
Antarctic ice sheet losing mass, says University of Colorado study
Isabella Velicogna, "Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19503 (2009).
Skepticism is demanding proof.
Denialism is continuing to insist it's not true, when there is proof.
Land is warmer than sea when the sun shines, colder than sea at night.
Doesn't even need to be melting land ice; just rain and/or snow will do the job. The atmosphere as a whole is getting moister due to the temperature rise; in particular the southern ocean is warming, resulting in more evaporation which will condense in the coldest air around, over Antarctica. The extra heat has made the ocean into more of a still, moving pure water to Antarctica. The pure water dilutes the salt, raises the freezing point, etc.
Furthermore, the lower salinity on top is less dense, reducing the upwelling of warmer water from below, which is saltier and heavier, thus the layer on top stays colder and less salty, both lead to more ice.
Another hypothesis is that increased winds and/or currents move the ice around generating open water, which then freezes.
No, what he's saying is:
the sea water is <0 C but not freezing because of the salt content.
The land ice is melting and diluting the sea water, thus raising the freezing point to where it's above the current sea temp, so it freezes.
I don't know if that theory is correct or not, but you should at least be able to follow the reasoning.
I have found I can greatly increase the sound quality by using the green pens to color my cables.
In the words of Steve Miller, "you can make your music on a ten cent comb"
With popular music especially, the sound quality depends on what the engineer was mixing on, and presumably what kind of equipment he was mixing it for. Early Beatles albums, for example, sound great on good systems, but with early stones albums, the better the system the worse they sound. Either they were designed for crappy 60s car radios and cheap record players, or the engineers blew it.
My advice when testing audio components for purchase (does anybody do that anymore?) was not to use some track you liked; you'd enjoy it if it was some drunken chimp playing it on a kazoo. But if a system could make you pay attention and admire something that you were kind blah about, that was a good system.
Can't say that it's true in the digital world (although it probably is) butnin the analog recording world there's no doubt that the distortions from the electronic components were orders of magnitude less than those from the mechanical components, I.e. the vinyl/cartridge system and the speakers; and of those two, the greatest single source of alteration in the signal was the interaction between the speakers and the listening environment.
Very true; the dream of copy protection with no vulnerable points lives on. (I get my music from Amazon too, but mostly free tracks)
You don't need a large scale test; if one person can reliably and repeatably tell the difference in a double blind test, then the difference is there; and there is no reason to think that a person with no real hearing deficits cannot learn to hear it with experience.
If you can actually mp3s to decode, you have a way to detect problems which it's much easier than listening intently. Set up (or find a high schooler who can still do hardware) a good opamp with the original signal going in the plus and the signal run through the coder and decoderb into the minus, then adjust the levels to get the best cancellation, I.e. the output volume of the signal should be nearly zero. (Feed the opamp output into your listening system, I forgot to say) obviously, anything still audible will be distortion, caused by the digital process.
The last time I tried this with an outboard PCM encoder and decoder system I was really badly surprised at how much grunge was audible, and more importantly how really irritating it was. Admittedly, however, that was 30 years ago. I'm sure that since then, manufacturers have learned to make things worse.
Lest you think I'm an old crank, let me introduce to to the Aphex Exciter; a recording too used to deliberately add irritating distortion to the music, to make it really pop out at you. (Yes that's where Aphex twin got the name) When solid state took over from tubes, everybody raved about the brilliant highs, until they were proved to be distortion. Exact same thing when CDs took over from vinyl. Just add some popping and fizzing whenever your recording hits a high frequency, and it sounds awesome. But you get fatigued quite quickly.
That's a good point; although the theoretical digital processing may be undetectable to human ears, one very seldom finds cheap chips which perform to theoretical perfection. Thus the use of 24 bit DACs in good CD players, to decode 16 bit encodings; because the bottom few bits on cheap DACs are worthless, so if you want real 16 bit accuracy in real life, you need to spec a 24 bit chip.
Just like the visual detail lost in the lossy compression of jpegs is undetectable.
All these approximations are orbit to orbit.
that's the easy part.
Was suggested maybe 50 years ago that a tank of water heated by a ground based tight laser beam makes a good interplanetary engine.
The original research papers themselves don't make such extravagant claims. Their purpose is not to sell advertising space, as is the purpose of newspapers, tv, and the web. That is why all those are devoted to dividing every thing in the universe into things that kill you, and things that save your life. With many things apparently on both lists.
"I don't want to die and I really don't want to die of cancer! Isn't there something I can do? Some medicine I can take? Anything? I'm desperate! "
"No need to go to such lengths, just eat fruits and vegetables"
"Ummm, err, anything. . Is there anything? "
"Seriously, anything? "
Despite the fundamentalists' (again false) belief that they represent traditional religion, it is only the religion of the Dark Ages in Europe which they represent.
More often, traditionally, science and religion did not clash; to the scientists of the Enlightenment, Newton for example, scientific study and discoveries were another form of worship; unfortunately, I can't remember which one it was who said that nature provided another Testament, the language of which was mathematics.
And even before that, while Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world unequivocally tied science to the glory of God, and the foremost Jewish thinker of the post-Talmudic era, Maimonides, around 1100 used as a starting point the assumption that to use scripture to try to refute either the teachings of science, or common sense, was a grievous error.
The fundamentalists of today, no matter what particular religion they espouse, all share intellectual laziness or incompetence, the very opposite of what the great figures in religion historically represented.
"Wasn't it recently established that you get better government by randomly picking names from a phone book than from ANY of the diluted flavours of democracy currently practiced?"
Yes, I think you could make the argument that running for office should be enough to label a person as unfit for office.
"Compared to a country that chooses it's leaders from the same heriditory class that went to a couple of boys-only schools and then studied politics at one university. Where not a single minister has any technical background and who fire science advisors if they fail to agree with the Daily Mail."
And we still end up with smarter, better, more liked and more competent leaders than yours."
It's the money. There are huge profits to be made by manipulating the media in America.
"It's not that Americans are any more stupid than any other race - it's that they are poorly informed."
"No, they really are stupid and not just stupid, but proud of it!"
I submit that they are extremely well informed, however the information they are being informed with is manufactured to sell a political opinion, as thoroughly and efficiently as the majority of the information they are informed with regarding any particular fast food outlet, for example, is manufactured to sell them burgers.
" CO2 levels rise - the Earth warms."
* No, it is Earth warms -> CO2 rises."
Sure, if you ignore the known IR absorption of CO2, and the big dent in the earth's radiated EM energy, right where CO2 absorbs
and conservation of energy, and the earth's temperature being 33 degrees C warmer than it should be purely from the sun's radiation at this distance (take the moon for example), then sure, the earth wouldn't warm proportional to the log of the CO2 concentration. On the other hand, if you accept all these, and as the earth warms, CO2 rises (which seems to be true), then we are kind of entering a bad period. Much as the Australian colonists experienced, without having to debate whether the number of baby rabbits rose after the number of adults, or was it that the number of adult rabbits rose after the number of babies?
" Computer models used by warmers produce high correlation between the temperature and CO2. The CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years, while the temperature is almost flat."
Just like it was almost flat from Jan '70 to Nov '77, Nov '77 to Nov '86, Sep '87 to Nov '96, Mar '97 to Oct '02, and Oct '02 to Dec '11 yet, that didn't seem to signal the end of the 42-year warming trend nearly linear from Jan '70 to Dec '11 (which you need, to explain your "Earth warms -> CO2 rises" and " CO2 concentration has been rising very fast in the last 15 years"). Denialists are like an ant climbing a staircase, who repeats "Whew, glad the climbing part is over" every time he gets to the flat part of a tread.
"The models do not model clouds and therefore the feedback mechanisms"
Well, yes they do, they always have. However, the IPCC has always stated that cloud feedbacks were the most uncertain of the modeled effects. Spencer et al used to rely on the hope that these effects would be negative. But that argument was valid 10 or even 5 years ago, not today.
"They are almost always wrong on the warmer side
So, you and Roy Spencer, as shown by his graph you linked to, admit that it IS warming, about 2-3 degrees C per decade, but not 6 degrees per decade? Well, that's a start. However, it's clear from the graph that he has displaced the "actual" temperatures to make them appear lower, by picking an alignment point to just this effect, i.e. a peak in the actual temps to a valley in the model, rather than aligning them to maximize closeness, as would be the logical and/or honest basis.
" Climategate emails showed how any dissent is supressed"
Not according to every investigation. You don't seem to have had problems finding such dissent. Or did you get Spencer's web page via some underground telegraph?
"There is no doubt that the more religious an American is the more likely he is to be a climate change denier.
There are literaly dozens of surveys which prove this."
Kind of funny; the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator screwed up on making the climate, but luckily by burning all the fossil fuel we can, a byproduct is that we will improve the climate.
it's all a hoax! just like forest fires! there were forest fires long before there were humans, so obviously the argument that humans cause forest fires is nonsense! Just a hoax by Smokey the Bear, to keep up his lucrative government grants.
("Mostly because of Man Made trapped gasses...")
Yeah, that's not exactly what they, or the theory, says.
We only got to see like two seasons of it in the US. That is so frustrating.
nice of them, and probably very handy for wikipedia vandals, but generating large quantities of text on a virtual keyboard (or a real keyboard on a mobile, for that matter) is only slightly less odious than filming a major Hollywood movie on one.
The Great Baker House Snow Hack?
Something tells me this story has about as much reality behind it. Or maybe somebody could explain how taking hot dry air, running it through water so that it become cool (relatively) wet air, then mixing it with more hot dry air will result in condensation? Getting perilously close to perpetual motion there.
I suppose somebody will end up tying this to ":and therefore we see that climate change may not be manmade":
I use that all the time for computer questions:
"The data warehouse shows all the customers with the same phone number"
"Hmm.... have you tried turning your computer off and turning it on again?'
Yes, Urban Heat Influence would certainly explain why the temperature is rising most rapidly in the Arctic and Antarctic, Siberia, etc. All those giant metropolises there.
"The truth is that we probably will not know for sure before climate historians debate the issue a thousand years from now. By then, they will have a thousand years of data (I'm assuming that the data will not have been fudged by "interested parties" and will be pristine, recorded data only - I may be wrong) and a wee bit of hindsight with which to refine their models."
Fascinating; you manage to argue that the evidence can only be judged long after the fact, and to pre-deny the results of that evidence should it not go the way you want, all at the same time. A denialist tour-de-force.
Well, that's certainly a new theory. You bucking for a job with a rightwing think tank? You're on the right path, they don't require any sort of aptitude for science, or logic in general.
Even on a 5-year-average plot, which is abysmally noisy, you can see the JMA current estimate is above that from 1990 (I should probably point out that that is your "22 years", given the math skills discernible from the context), and that the slope is positive, both by linear fit and by eye. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
If you bother to go even further, and read the site in addition to bothering to look at the graphed data, you see that the JMA DOES NOT COVER THE POLES, which are warming faster than the rest of the Earth. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html
The text on that page further describes their procedure for generating an overall global estimate from a time sequence of gridded point data, or as your quaint phrase puts it, "fiddling the figures"; so you can see that "Not fiddling the figures" doesn't enter into it. It's not in Japanese, it's in English, if you can read that language.
The JMA kindly sprinkles other clues around their website, should you wish to avail yourself of them. For instance,
"The seasonal mean temperature for the summer from June to August 2010 over Japan was the highest among the historical records held by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) stretching back 113 years to 1898. ... The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2010 (i.e., the average of
the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was 0.34°C above normal (i.e., the
1971 – 2000 average), second only to that of 1998 since 1891."
Why do you guys always parrot what you read by people who make a living out of telling you things you wish to believe, and never bother to go look at the primary source? You always, ALWAYS end up looking like idiots and suckers.
Except for the part where the temperature has been rising. Even despite so much CO2 dissolving into the ocean that the pH is changing.
"Sapart feels the results mean climate scientists need to rethink what is a "normal" state for Earth's climate."
Uh, that would be hot, humid, and full of CO2, just as it was for the great majority of Earth's history, for billions of years before the current short time since photosynthesis sidetracked a lot of that CO2 out of the atmosphere and it got buried underground, resulting in an anomalous cool, dry, and less stormy epoch.
Of course, this deviation from the "normal" state is only metastable, and the potential energy stored in that fossil carbon means that it will eventually be returned to the atmospheric CO2 pool again and the climate will return to its normal hot, humid, and stormy state, like it was before there was any life on land. Wonder how/when that will happen?
uhoh... Lucas electrics....
Mr. Son of Reagan:
You are apparently unfamiliar with the relatively recent ruling which establishes that corporations are persons in the eyes of the law and therefore are permitted to spend their money supporting whichever candidates they feel would be best for themselves, the country, and/or the world.
"Possessing a conservative bumper sticker is a good way to get your car keyed."
Possessing an Obama bumper sticker in some parts of the US is a good way to get your ass kicked. Your point is? Oh, right, liberals are not as wonderful as conservatives. Got it.
That graph seems to be evidence FOR sudden rapid warming in the past century or so.
So you're going to stick to that story, eh?
"The estimated direct radiative forcing due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2, " - IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, TS.2.4 Radiative Forcing Due to Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions