skiskyrock

That's why it's "climate change" now. It's hard to convince people that it's "global warming" when it's not warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, so the use of the term "climate change" is hardly recent: http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html Since we have just completed the warmest meteorological year: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/nasa-2010-meteorological-year-wa.html and decade: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html on record, I can't see how you come to the conclusion it isn't warming.

You keep posting the histo5.png graph. Do you realize as posted it renders as gibberish in most browsers? Just numbers and a squiggly line. What is it a graph of? What is the scale ? What units? Assuming the Y axis is temperature, it looks kind of chilly to be the global mean temperature. Are you perhaps confusing a local temperature record with a global temperature reconstruction?

Interesting historical footnote, the pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist.

My EPs don't include a "look up and check the reserve step" between cutaway and reserve pull. I've never cutaway with a skyhook, but after cutting away (subterminal) on an RSL rig I felt something going on back there that may have been reserve deployment, but then again maybe not, so I made doubly sure by pulling the reserve handle. The handle was out before I started feeling strong deceleration from the reserve and well before I took the time to look up. It isn't so much a matter of muscle memory building as getting through the procedure fast enough that not pulling because you already see the reserve isn't an issue.

Mann is professor at Penn State, The author is at the University of Pennsylvania. Different schools.

Mind if I have a try at this? General notes 1) fortunately Darwin Australia is not the entire world; the author refers to the maxim "false in one false in all" which is a legal rather than scientific principle 2) evidently in it's history, the Darwin weather station has moved from the post office to the airport, been bombed by the Japanese, gone on and off of daylight savings time, and been converted from English to metric units. In the most recent paper I could find it is rated as a "3" for quality "4" or lower stations are not used in the temperature analysis Specific to the WUWT (Wattsupwiththat) post: 1) the cooling trend in the raw data is clearly bogus. The data shows a step change of nearly a degree over a period of 1-2 years around 1940 plotting a line through a step change like this clearly not appropriate unless there was a physical reason for such an abrupt change in climate. Especially since the station was moved to the airport in '41 2) the author calculates the temperature anomaly using a reference period of 1880 to calculate anomalies. Although this is an arbitrary choice, 1961-90 or 1951-80 are the IPCC and GIS temp reference periods, respectively. Coincidentally, the 1950-1990 is the region where most of the corrections to the raw data happen, and using standard base period would cause the bulk of the temperature correction to be removed from the data 3) like I said base period for anomaly corrections is arbitrary, and using the 1961-90 base period would make the 1880-1940 period would give a more negative anomaly. But if I wanted to abuse the data to give a false trend, it would be easier to just shift 1880-1940 (post office) data down to match the post 1940 airport data rather than going to the trouble of creating a world wide homgenization program so fiendishly clever that it will undetectably bias a third rate weather station in the middle of no where. The author even says that such a correction would be reasonable (but doesn't do it, since it would wipe out the negative trend in the raw data) 4) The author always shows the correction graph plotted on a different scale and with a different zero than the anomaly data. He also doesn't mention that the correction is to the raw temperature data rather than to the anomaly, both of which tend to be misleading

The whole plot matters, not just the final point.

Again with the thirty years. Latif refered to decades in the sense of a group of 10 years, not in the sense of "the 80's". He refers to a decade from 2000 to 2010 and a second decade from 2005 to 2015 and compared them to the decade 1994 to 2004, (I'm not sure this is the warmest 10 year period on record, but it does contain 9 of the 15 hottest years on record. to summarize the key points 1) his decades start in the past 2) they overlap 3) he isn't saying warming isn't occurring, just that its effects on surface temperature will not exceed the record 1994-2004 which was an extremely warm decade 4) we have only 5 years to run in his prediction 5) in aggregate his prediction only covers a total of 15 year

The eminent climate scientist quoted in the article takes issue with the spin put on his words: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif 1) he refers to natural variability due to ocean effects superimposed on a warming trend 2) the "decades" he refers to are 2000-2010 and 2005-2015 and are compared to the decade from 1994-2004, which is the decade centered on the warmest year on record (i.e the effect has 5 years left to run) 3) he states that his work does not challenge the predicted long term trend

Whining confirmed. The siting issue has been studied http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf When you look at the data trend for the unadjusted data from the sites, the poorly sited stations (biased high) show less warming than the well sited station. When the data are adjusted to correct for siting differences, there is little difference between stations.

Does it even remotely make sense to put the battery on the front hub where it is exposed to vibration, centrifugal force, water etc? Plus all that unsprung weight must make handling interesting.

Or telling them to not drink and drive, and suggesting they use a designated driver if they suspect alcohol may be present at a party. Blues, Dave Ironically, from looking at the Wisconsin dept of revenue website, it looks like it would be OK to have a 14 year-old working with alcoholic beverages, as long as it wasn't a retail operation. Also it seems to be legal to serve a minor, as long as the parents are present. So you could just take them out to a bar after the party.

No, I don't advocate running all sales through a gun dealer. The instant check system can be modified to allow private sellers to call and get a simple yes or no to the sale without revealing any private information. This in no way pushes more restriction on gun dealers, nor any more responsibility. Yes, it would push them toward the black market. But, as i said, it would also enable us to hold the seller partially responsible for the buyers actions if no attempt was made to check the buyers background. The use of the NICS system would be a non-starter for me for any number of reasons (most related to privacy, practicality). However, one possible solution is available (at least in "shall issue" states). Include a line on the drivers license stating that the individual is/is not qualified to carry a concealed weapon. Rerun the background check at every license renewal. This would be any easy way to check on the legality of face to face transactions. If you felt strongly about it, you could opt out and have the card state that you aren't allowed to carry firearms even if legally qualified. This would provide some protection if an employer were to check the license. A police officer or psychiatrist could put a temporary hold on you by taking a paper punch to the license (or confiscating it entirely). Would it make any difference in crime rates? Unlikely.

The best thing I've found for waxing skis is something called a workmate shop box by Black & Decker (not sure anyone else make something similar). It is a tool box with a workmate type vise built into the top surface. The vise is perfect for clamping skis, and the box has enough room for the iron, torch, p-tex, wax and files. I would strongly recommend universal wax. Use the wrong temperature specific wax, and you'll feel like you are velcroed to the slope.

One thing I love about my VW TDI's.....they both get far better milage than the posted mpg at the dealerships. The new one I looked at a year ago was listed at 42MPG hwy and 30 MPG city... I have yet to ever get less than 45 MPG average between city and country roads in mine while commuting about 250 miles a week.....and I have managed to get over 60 MPG on a long trip... flat freeway doing 70 MPH. I usually get about 650 miles to a tank of fuel.

Note that even if you are a beginner and opt to land at the DZ, you can still be helpful by noting the where the main lands. If the main is down while you are still in the air (likely in a beginner scenario) note where the main is in relation to your position on the ground and a landmark beyond the main, so you can line it up later while looking at the aerial photo of the dropzone. If you can manage this twice, you can triangulate. Personally, I like having help finding my own gear, so i try to follow other people's gear, as long as it is safe to do so.

From the Fox article: You may need to suck it up - Fox News was fair and balanced about it. The Fox News report called it a "pause" - take a look at my first post where I pointed out EXACTLY that. In the interest of fairness and balance, I'd suggest you post a retraction. Latif does not make predictions beyond 2015, and in his 2008 Nature letter the forecast of his oscillation model is indistinguishable from the IPCC model by 2025. He also doesn't describe a pause in global warming, merely that it's effect on surface temperature will be offset by ocean circulation (i.e. the warming will be going to raise ocean temperatures rather than surface temperatures. I also can't find any reference to him calling for a mini ice age. to quote the man himself: "I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif evidently he didn't say what Fox thinks he said

Back in the late 90's the Sea Shepherds conducted a campaign against the Makah tribe in Washington when they attempted to resume whaling. They are equal opportunity in that regard.

Currently we are coming out of a solar minimum so the irradiance is below average and has been for the last half decade, but in any even the difference between minimum and maximum amounts to a fraction of the forcing due to CO2.

For a scientist, that sort of accusation is just about as welcome as an accusation of child molestation. I'm curious... if you met him in the bar face to face again, what exactly would you accuse him of? How would you back up your accusation? This whole climategate business is almost as bad as the McCarthy hearings; possibly worse since the communist party did actually exist.

I've worked with MEMS devices where x-rays were used to degrade PMMA (plexiglass) to make masks to form the devices; I don't remember specific levels, but we used a synchrotron so it was pretty intense. Exposure increases the crosslinking of the polymer until it becomes very hard and fragile. I have also used radiation sterilization on injectable drugs. The polymer seals were still in good shape after exposure at 50 kiloGrays, but the glass was starting to darken. Basically, radiation will damage polymers like nylon, but it will take a large dose.

from and editorial in the journal Nature, regarding the "Nature trick to hide the decline": "The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies." Nature has been in business for 140 years and is considered to be the preeminent science journal in the world. Their reputation is built on publishing high quality, innovative research. They seem to be willing to stand behind the paper.

It shows an overall cooling trend since 1998 - why do you think it doesn't? Woodfortrees is an interesting website, thanks for pointing it out. Did you know if you plot only one set of data at a time you can use the second channel to add a least squares trend line to the data? I added one to your RSS data set from your earlier, the UAH trend is basically identical. P.S. you can get a negative trend if you play with the smoothing, but the interval still has to start on 1998; 1997 or 1999 won't work. This is the sort of thing that doesn't get through peer review with out a really good explanation

Yes. I'm not sure that this has any significance, however, since the decline discussed is for tree ring reconstructed temperature vs. observed local temperature. There is a recent 2007 review in Global and Planetary Change by D-Arrigio that goes into quite a bit more detail.