Leaderboard

If you had looked at the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you would see that radiated power is not linearly proportional to temperature - it depends on T4. Your use of a linear relationship is incorrect. The number is wrong (except at some specific temperature, where it will be approximately correct), and the idea that a power will have a constant relation to a temperature change is also wrong. I don't understand - this says that 93% of the members agree that at least 40% of the warming is anthropogenic, and only 1% disagree that climate change is occurring. How is that to be equated with questioning climate science? Also, it would be nice to have a reference for the cited IPCC claim. Because what I found from the IPCC is "The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900" https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/ And the graph I posted earlier shows that we've warmed about 1.3-1.4ºC since then, so the IPCC does not claim "totality" Lastly, meteorologists study weather, not climate, so while they are better equipped to understand many of the arguments involved, the fact that about a quarter of them put the contribution possibly as low as 40% (for all we know, they could think it's 59%) isn't the denunciation that it's being portrayed as. Seeing as we've seen a few instances now of Scafetta playing fast and loose with the verifiable facts, perhaps you should be placing less trust in their unsubstantiated claims.

Too many other variables to consider. Go see a doctor. Until then, keep in mind that this is the internet so it's definitely cancer and your penis is going to fall off within 3 weeks. Better act now.

They are different materials. Talc is a hydrated mag. silicate Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 One formula given for amosite is Fe7Si8O22(OH)2 crocidolite is Na2FeI3FeIII2Si8O22(OH)2. And so on...

...INow appoint INow to the Supreme Court...for reasons I won't go into but hold to be self evident... JC MacSwell 2026

I think most of your negative clicks were due to your comment: I didn't give you any negative points. I, for one, welcome scepticism. But scepticism, unfortunately, has to be set against a background of different levels of urgency, as well as the position that these claims have in a context of pre-existing scientific explanations, call it widespread consensus. I will not entertain the question of possible hidden agendas or motivations in this consensus. Seems to me that the conclusions are uncomfortable enough for everybody that we it's very difficult to imagine any credible agenda from the so-called "alarmists." First: The question of global warming is of the utmost urgency. What's a stake is too important to be dispatched with a vague... Hmmm, I have serious doubts about these claims. Second: There is a context of general agreement between climate scientists that the anthropogenic fingerprint, at the very least, must play a role in global warming. There are paleoclimate signatures of this that @TheVat, I think, has mentioned. The best thing about those little bubbles of air trapped in Antarctic ice is that they provide a next-to-exact sample of what the air was like in different times of history. But: The bulk of the argument is not about models and simulations, it's about measurements and correlations. And those have been done with excruciating detail, as told above. I think it's important to say that there are aspects about climate change that are pretty much model-independent or too complicated to be explained with one particular models with say, 4 parameters. So it's not so much a matter of explaining such and such sequence of years, or even decades, of particularly hot winters or particularly cold summers, as it is to explain the completely --and glaringly obviously I should say-- smooth and consistent rise in global temperatures that goes hand in hand with the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity. There is such a thing as a big picture. Tim Palmer explains this point that you're --rightfully so-- curious about very clearly during a Pi-Institute talk: https://youtu.be/w-IHJbzRVVU?t=685 (pointing you to the moment when he addresses your question.) Here's a question --directed to @Doogles31731 that was repeated once, and I think is of great importance: If it was answered, I missed it. CO2 absorbs radiation at the typical bandwidth of solar frequencies enough to deserve qualification as a greenhouse gas. You can prove this in a bucket if you want, and then reasonably assume it's not going to change for the atmosphere, because that's just a property of that particular chemical. Of course, what makes matters considerably more involved is that the atmosphere is a much more complicated system and there are many other factors at play, because there are lots of noise effects that muddle things up: continental drift, weathering, ocean circulation patterns, astronomical cycles, to name just a few. Here's a couple of graphs from another talk given by Dan Britt, under the heading, "let's pretend that short-term climate is driven by..." that addresses the question of why the peaks and valleys are there, while the increasing slope really seems to be telling us something about longer-term trends: The last graph only takes into account what are believed to be the 4 main factors of climate patterns. The thick grey line is the human activity line. The correlation factor r=.87 says all you need to know. It is conceivable that the overall tendency is not a clean linear superposition of the factors --I wouldn't expect it to be exactly that but as a first approximation--. Nevertheless, neither solar-spot cycles, nor volcanic aerosol levels, nor ENSO cycles display that very clear ascending slope that human activity does. It's anthropogenic emissions that give it that character. It must be something emerging from biology. It doesn't fit any stellar cycle that I know of, nor tectonic, nor having to do with ocean regimes. What else could it be? I will resist the temptation to quote Sherlock Holmes once more.

You know, there are several people on SFN who have discussed this and might be willing to dive into the science again, if that was going to be fruitful. Based on the veneer of argument that you've made, though, you are signaling that you aren't really interested in pursuing that. If you are interested in a substantive discussion, though, just say so. But you will need to back up any claims you make, actually delve into science, and would be expected to refrain from rhetoric. One example. The reason CO2 lagged in the past but why we are in a different situation now would be something to discuss. But it has to go beyond the denialist talking points.

Wouldn't you rather have a visit from St Patrick ?

Also have life tenure with little chance of removal. With everything based upon their interpretation of the Constitution, what sort of person they are matters more than anything else honestly. There's not even any requirements for the position itself.

The antithesis of UK SC selection then. Thank you for bringing the US judicial selection criteria to the fore.

From the Congressional Research Service reference shared in my post immediately preceding SJs (emphasis added): Virtually every President is presumed to take into account a wide range of political considerations when faced with the responsibility of filling a Supreme Court vacancy. For political or other reasons, nominee attributes such as party affiliation, ideological orientation, geographic origin, ethnicity, religion, and gender may be of particular importance to a President. A President’s search for professional excellence in a nominee rarely proceeds without also taking political factors into account.

I wasn't aware there was evidence that torture did not work in any circumstances. Did I miss something? I agree. Just for an extreme example, let's assume I break into your house and ask where you keep your cash (and let's say you DO keep some cash around). You say "I have no cash", hoping I'll go away. But if I start torturing you, I imagine you would succumb to the torture and tell me where the money is. Giving me the fake location in your house only buys you time, not a reprieve. Many criminals will tell the police who their boss is just by being offered a shorter sentence. It seems obvious that many criminals would also succumb under torture. I of course don't condone any of this, only making the point that to say torture doesn't work is overstating things. Personal motivation, risk/reward, strength of character and belief, all play a role. Absolutely correct. Torture is horrible. It should never be policy. It is of limited effectiveness. It is a step back for humanity. It entails huge risk. But... If the outcome of some act was bad enough and could potentially be averted, I think it shouldn't be off the table. That's all. I was just answering the OP, not promoting torture.

I gather they are often found together in nature (both metamorphic products of ultramafic minerals like olivine, I think), so measures have to be taken to ensure commercial talcum powder does not contain any asbestos.

They have different composition, as @John Cuthberhas explained. My understanding is that the different physical appearance is due to the way the minerals cleave. Talc easily cleaves along a plane, in one dimension, into 2D sheets, rather as graphite and the micas do. Asbestos minerals cleave along two planes, more or less perpendicular to one another, resulting in 1D fibres. The behaviour depends on whether the crystal structure is in the form of sheets or chains of the silicate tetrahedra in the mineral.

Server administrators have a built-in "dd" command... e.g. dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sda bs=64M will wipe the entire HDD/SSD dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb bs=64M will copy the entire HDD/SSD to a 2nd HDD/SSD dd if=/dev/sda of=/media/root/pendrive/file.img bs=64M will copy entire HDD/SSD to a pendrive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dd_(Unix) You can backup, wipe out or restore MBR/GPT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dd_(Unix)#Master_boot_record_backup_and_restore (Or check if the MBR/GPT has been modified by a hacker. Create a script that reads the MBR/GPT, calculate the hash and compare it to the previous version, possibly sends it to the other machine.... and alert you if it has changed) It works on Windows data. Just download Linux live DVD, Rufus create bootable pendrive, and you can make a backup of Windows data as well.

Me too.

This is most unfair. I work hard on my posts, while @dimreepr, to take just one example, gets by with the likes of, Don't we all? Does it matter? Imagine that! Now serious, the computer has taken over my life too. Similar to @Peterkin, I have a browser tab with the forums open and take a look from time to time, when I get a break.

I don't use it anymore, except in the rare instance when I cancel a spiteful down-vote to a reasonable post. Have no real problem with graffiti - it's less intrusive than lavish use of emoticons.

Yes I agree this method is poor science. I have never heard of scafetta before, but I am immediately suspicious of the website posting the refutation you have linked to, because of this staement. I have done a great deal of curve fitting in my time and one thing stands out. The lesson that stands out is that the higher the order of the collocating function, the better the fit at the collocating points, but at the expense of the greater the 'wiggle' between those points. I can even supply many standard textbook references to this effect.

You were misrepresenting. My reply began with my two word response reflecting my thoughts: palaeoclimate evidence. Terse, but a shorthand that was accurately reflecting my thinking which is: palaeoclimate evidence makes a compelling case for anthropogenic GW driven by a rapid rise in GHGs. I replied in good faith, but with very limited time yesterday. You seem to be trying for some ad hominem tack that suggests a brief comment that points to a vast body of peer-reviewed research can only show the member has no thoughts of their own. This is a cheap shot, bad faith approach and I will waste no more time with you.

Yes I was considering something like that. Recently someone posted a question about a homemade spectrophotmeter, can't remember the thread now. But looking at Ebay I found a complete monochromator from one for a couple of quid by typing in spectrophotometer. Anyway doogles' beef appears to be that he can't find any reference to people today measuring the absorbance of carbon dioxide relative to concentration. Od course all the constants for that is well documented today and he is asking the question backwards. Many institutes have been measuring concentration from absorbance for decades, for example this New Zealand agency. https://niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/facilities/baring-head/greenhouse-gas-analyses Perhaps we should be explaining that we know the relationship and are using it to measure the concentration, not the other way round, these days. Note there are also establishments using other methods such as mass spectrometry. All that is needed is to type into Google "analysis of atmospheric gas" to find lots of pages of folks doing this.

Most mutations may be neutral, but harmful mutations must still outnumber beneficial ones, if they are truly random.

Any time

Ken Fabian, and beecee, your answers do not fit mistermack’s question “OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?” Serious droughts have been very common in Australia’s history -- See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia ..................................................... SwansonT, you are a genius. I typed several computations of that title into Google Scholar and PubMed looking for the original article, without success, but it never occurred to me to use Google and look for images. Thank you. You and exchemist have been very helpful with references for a curious person such as myself and I have used the green tick for both of you accordingly. Although I must add that exchemist has made some badly mistaken assumptions about my motives in my posts. Like TheVat, I have taken a passing interest in Climate Science for a couple of decades now and have not been happy with many of the inconsistencies and conclusions. But I’m not a climate scientist. As you know I have been looking for the basic science on which the calculations and models were constructed, since Tyndall. I notice that mistermack received a red tick from somebody when he stated " A skeptic doesn't declare the model right or wrong. They question the evidence, the method and the conclusions. That questioning is what's missing in CS. There might be some very good work done, but the bad stuff, the over the top conclusions are not questioned.“ I support him in that statement. Apropos of questioning the basics of the data on which climate science and calculations are based, I found a 2019 paper by Scafetta who did just that. You can read his interpretation of the literature yourself and draw your own conclusions. I think that what he says, sounds right, but the paper is of such a nature that it would be hard to summarize. If he’s right, then many of the current climate models need modification and if he’s wrong, then climate science is still too inconsistent. Scafetta (2019; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicola-Scafetta/publication/334746460_ON_THE_RELIABILITY_OF_COMPUTER-BASED_CLIMATE_MODELS/links/5d496ede4585153e5940b019/ON-THE-RELIABILITY-OF-COMPUTER-BASED-CLIMATE-MODELS.pdf) in On the reliability of computer-based climate models. It’s in the peer-reviewed Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment. The Introduction states “In this short review, I will briefly summarize some of the main reasons why the AGWT should be questioned. A reader should consider that a recent survey among more than 4000 members of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et alii, 2016) revealed that 96% of the respondents acknowledges that a climatic change is taking place. However, with regards to its physical causes, only 29% of respondents agreed with the claim that 80-100% of the global surface warming observed since 1960 has been induced by human activity. Another 38% claimed that humans were responsible for 60-80% of the observed warming, while 26% claimed that natural climatic factors have contributed from 40% to 100% of it. 6% could not answer and only 1% thinks that a climatic change did not really occur. So, only a minority, probably far less than a third of the US meteorologists agrees with the claim of the IPCC that the totality (100%) of the warming observed since 1870 or 1960 has been anthropogenic. Thus, it is not true that there is a nearly total consensus on the IPCC’s main claims. I will try to explain why so many people with some expertise on this topic are skeptical of the AGWT of the GCMs.” So it’s not just people with a passing interest who question climate science, but a fair percentage of 4000 members of a Meteorological Society. This is part of Scafetta’s conclusions, but as I said, you’d have to read the paper yourself. “I have finally proposed a semi-empirical climate model calibrated in such a way to reconstruct the natural climatic variability since medieval times because it includes the millennial oscillation observed throughout the Holocene (Scafetta 2013a; 2013b). I have shown that this model projects very moderate warming until 2040 and a maximum additional warming of about 1.5°C from 2000 to 2100 using the same anthropogenic emission scenarios adopted by the CMIP5 models: see Figures 18-19. This result suggests that climatic adaptation policies, which are less expensive than the mitigation ones, could be sufficient to address most of the consequences of climatic changes that could occur during the 21st century. A major scientific implication of this research is that the climate is significantly modulated by astronomical oscillations which may generate solar-associated forcings different from the total solar irradiance forcing. This eventuality would further suggest that the current models are not reliable because important space weather climate forcings are still poorly understood and not included in the GCMs.” It's an article that mirrors my concerns as well as those of a high percentage of meteorologists. If any members reject the findings of this article, please present case arguments to substantiate your case. Nicola Scafetta is the author or co-author of about 70 publications up to 2016.

Somebody asked me earlier what evidence I had that skeptics were driven out of climate science, and new ones deterred from joining. My answer is, just read back through this thread. And look at all the negative clicking, and the sheer emotion displayed on a supposedly science thread. How could anyone live with that, working every day in a climate science environment? As far as I was concerned, I was stating the bleeding obvious, but thanks everybody, for your ringing endorsement of what I wrote. Studiot, CO2 lags. If you read up on the Vostok ice cores, you wil find that it's always lagged. It's not in dispute, and it would take a monumental fraud to make the data say otherwise, so that won't happen. That was the inconvenient truth that Al Gore tried to hide, in his money-spinning "Inconvenient Truth" video. He put the CO2 and Temp vostok graphs up, and simply came out with his notorious "never mind the details" to gloss over the fact that the temperature leads, and CO2 follows, not the other way around. (historically for hundreds of thousands of years) Even today, if you look at the modern CO2 graph, and the modern temp graph, over the last 150 years, it was temperature rising first, with no significant rise in CO2 till 1950, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Of course, humans are now pumping out CO2 at a prodigious rate, so it's a new ball game. But the basic question of did has CO2 lagged historically, is crystal clear. Yes it has, for hundreds of thousands of years. I wouldn't claim that that fact rebuts the global warming CO2 arguments. Unless you are trying to decieve, as Al Gore was.

What interests me, is the situation of the peaks in the graphs. You get a situation where the temperature graph peaks, and begins to drop like a stone. But the CO2 graph continues sharply upwards and doesn't drop for another 900 years (from memory). So you have a 900 year period, where CO2 is still rising sharply, but temperatures are plunging. And it often goes all the way, into a major glaciation. 900 years of sky-high record CO2 levels, with plunging global temperatures. Hard to match up with a world so sensitive to CO2. And worryingly, we are at a similar stage in the cycle now. Albeit with even higher CO2 levels. We could be dodging a bullet, with our CO2 emissions.

Melodrama, much? Stop caricaturizing. You are getting old.