pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces

... man, go back to elementary school. That hasn't happened, isn't happening, and isn't going to happen. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-31]

Yes it is. As the NAS explains on page 6 here:

"In nature, CO2 is exchanged continually between the atmosphere, plants and animals through photosynthesis, respiration, and decomposition, and between the atmosphere and ocean through gas exchange. A very small amount of CO2 (roughly 1% of the emission rate from fossil fuel combustion) is also emitted in volcanic eruptions. This is balanced by an equivalent amount that is removed by chemical weathering of rocks."

So natural CO2 emissions are balanced, and our fossil fuel emissions are roughly 100x faster than volcanic emissions. That's why "actual science" shows that our current CO2 emissions rate is unprecedented over the last 300 million years.

And if you read the rest of that NAS document, you'd discover that "actual science" shows that our unprecedentedly rapid CO2 emissions are a cause for concern.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. ... [Dumb Scientist]

... All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier. I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-28]

Again, spotting outliers via media uproar isn't as rigorous as actually looking at the data. So let's reproduce Fig 1(b) in Karl et al. 2015, which shows trends from 1998 to 2012. Let's calculate those trends for all the land/ocean, global, and satellite datasets listed here:

HadCRUT4 trend: +0.050 ± 0.139 C/decade (2 sigma)

NOAA trend: +0.079 ± 0.131 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) trend: +0.086 ± 0.148 C/decade (2 sigma)

GISTEMP trend: +0.100 ± 0.141 C/decade (2 sigma)

Berkeley trend: +0.096 ± 0.137 C/decade (2 sigma)

HadCRUT4 krig v2 trend: +0.111 ± 0.152 C/decade (2 sigma)

Karl(2015) krig trend: +0.111 ± 0.157 C/decade (2 sigma)

RSS trend: -0.055 ± 0.246 C/decade (2 sigma)

UAH trend: +0.054 ± 0.251 C/decade (2 sigma)

All these trend estimates are consistent with my previous statement: there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

Do these results support Jane's claim that Karl et al. 2015 is somehow an "outlier"?

If you have free speech, yes you have that right.

Speaking of gluten free - i tried it once. Turned out either i have a mild gluten allergy or consciously picking the food I ate based on nutritional values made a significant difference in my disposition. I was more pleasant to be around, more energetic, had less ailments, was more regular in bathroom breaks, and overall felt better.

Of course that was not a proper study and it just as well could have been a placebo effect moving in. I'm back to my old ways again with a few exceptions and do not see much of any reversal though.

You're "misunderstanding" fundamental concepts and basic facts about the figures in Karl et al. 2015. That's not misdirection, it's relevant. If you can't even get the basics right, what makes you think you'll be able to understand anything else?

There is no grasping at all here. If they permit you to hold an event in a park, i am not free to have a touch football game at that time in that same space where i could otherwise.

The line is clearly drawn at a fugitive speaking. A Polanski film wouldn't be the same unless it was Polanski himself making a speech. His music played by either recording or cover band would be the same.

What is at play here is whether or not government has the right to restrict fugitives from special uses of public property. Seeing how they can suspend a fugitive's license, It is clear that they can.

You are correct.

There is also nothing in the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech. That's what this is. They want to have a concert on public grounds that will in essence restrict other from freely using the same said grounds and the city said no if a wanted criminal and fugitive from law would be a party of it.

It doesn't matter. You are trying to correct a political spouting BS to see if people will believe him.

Here is a couple of facts which you should know but got lost within the technical of the sequestration.

First, the Benghazi happened September 11, 2012. Second, the budget sequestration, while becoming law in 2011 under the Budget control act, did not sequester anything until March of 2013. It was supposed to kick in of a budget reconciliation was not passed by January 1 2013 but they extended it in the American Tax Payer Relief Act of 2012.

So while you are technically correct, you simply do not need to be. A fucking calendar and the ability to count is all you need to show how much of a clueless moron looking to justify itself the guy is. The sequestration could not have been the cause of something that happened 7 months before the sequestration. Even if you do not count the delay to march instead of January, we are looking at almost 4 months before the sequestration. Numerous requests for more security was supposedly requested and rejected. The rejection was not in any way due to Sequestration.

No he didn''t..lol..

Libby was charged and convicted for crap surrounding the investigation not outing plame. That wa Richard Armatage and it was known from the start of the investigation.

FFS, it's all over the internet and any reference site you wish to pick. Wikipedia, for all it's worth, even cites references. I cannot understand how in this day and age anyone would get this so wrong when it's so easy to do a cursory investigation into the matter.

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. [Dumb Scientist]

Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?

If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedly given him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."

Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers. [Dumb Scientist]

Again, nonsense. NOAA and NASA assume that high and low temperature records were taking at particular times of day. There is no rational basis for making that assumption on a large scale. It might be true in many cases but before there were standards, people at least attempted to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day, and low temperature readings at the coldest. Again, that's just simple logic, which seems to be beyond your ken. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Again, your accusation that "NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer" is completely baseless and incompatible with an understanding of how NOAA and NASA actually correct for time of observation bias (TOBS).

Six's thermometers have automatically recorded maximum and minimum temperatures since ~1780, so there's no reason to speculate about whether people "attempted" to take high temperature readings at the hottest part of the day. That has happened automatically for over two centuries.

As Dr. Venema explains, calculating the daily mean temperature by averaging the high and low temperatures isn't always the best choice, especially if the diurnal temperature range is smaller than day-to-day variability. The best choice, of course, would be to measure the temperature at every instant during the day and then average all those measurements.

That's feasible with 2015 electronics, but it wasn't in 1937. Instead, some scientists recorded the temperature four times a day, at 0, 6, 12, and 18 hours universal time (UTC). Other scientists didn't like getting up in the middle of the night, so they measured three times a day at 7, 14 and 21 hours local time.

NOAA and NASA aren't assuming that high and low temperature records were taken at particular times of day. The scientists who recorded temperatures didn't just write down the temperature, they also wrote down when it was recorded.

That's why it should be obvious that correcting for time of observation bias means that NOAA and NASA think that people in 1937 knew how to read thermometers and clocks. Otherwise all those years of careful work by countless unnamed scientists couldn't ever be used to correct for time of observation bias.

But hey, why not hurl baseless and incoherent accusations at NOAA and NASA? You don't have to make sense, just spread confusion.

The rest of this is your same old "bringing up old shit and inappropriately trying to insert it into current conversation", as you did above by inserting statements made weeks ago, entirely out-of-context. When are YOU going to learn that tactic is utterly dishonest and despicable, not to mention just plain invalid logical argument? You've argued here with at least several things I've said in the past which had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the current conversation. Not only does that not refute my point, it rather shows you for the asshole you are. That comment is based on my strong opinion of your consistent (and recorded) actions. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Charming. So you won't retract your baseless accusation that NOAA adjusted 1937 downward when they actually adjusted it upward?

You won't retract your accusation that adjustments are "always cooler in the past and warmer now" or your claim that the government's own unmanipulated data shows no significant warming since around 1900? Even now that you know the government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do?

Can we agree that it's stupid to call those adjustments "fraud"?

Were they open to the network or open to VPN into the network?

I've never trusted wireless access. Could never get the funding to really secure it. The answer for those places that just have to have it was a separate network in front of the firewall and VPN everything through. From a user perspective, It could be an open access point but they didn't have access to the company network.

Lol.. if you think this guy is a moron, you know nothing about securing a network. One of the most basic principles is to not allow devices and access you do not directly control. The fact that he was detecting a MAC address at all means he was using it with the company network.

You have basically three choices if he doesn't supply the phone. Either do without a phone, do with a different employer, or allow the insane policy.

Working somewhere else won't fix the policy because there will always be someone desperate for employment who would put up with it. But it is a pointless policy because you can copy everything from the comfort of home before it gets to the point of wiping the phone. About the only good use for something like this would be if the phone came up missing and you cannot trust it anymore. I think there are already services you can use to wipe phones (some may even brick them after the wipe) if they became lost or stolen. Not an unreasonable request in my opinion. That is if you are going to keep credentials that allow access to company resources like email or VPN services on it.

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last century. Without those adjustments, last year's record global surface temp would be even more of a record, especially compared to 1937. Think about that.

"If you just wanted to release to the American public our uncorrected data set, it would say that the world has warmed up about 2.071 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Our corrected data set says things have warmed up about 1.65 degrees Fahrenheit. Our corrections lower the rate of warming on a global scale." [Dr. Russell S. Vose, chief of the climate science division at NOAA's Asheville center, and a coauthor of Karl et al. 2015]

When adjusting for real errors corrections tend to be in a random direction. Not always cooler in the past and warmer now!!! The very fact that the adjustments have almost universally been in the same directions is cause for skepticism of the result. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-28]

Nonsense. Once again, Jane/Lonny's "fact" is completely wrong.

Constantly adjusting past temperatures one direction, down, to create a warming trend is embarrassingly shameful. [ReasonBurger, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-10]

It's embarrassingly shameful that so many gullible people have been fooled into baselessly accusing scientists of constantly adjusting past temperatures down to create a warming trend. How many more years of "studying" will it take them to realize that they were completely wrong about this simple fact? Even then, will they ever retract their baseless accusations?

... I'm not just speaking from abject ignorance, I've been following the subject since Al Gore's movie came out. I know what the physics of mainstream AGW theory are. I know how the models work. I know how homogenization is done. I know what a TOBS adjustment is. And on and on. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Does Jane/Lonny really know what a TOBS adjustment is?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

That's not the most effective way to show that you know what a TOBS adjustment is. No adjustment performed by NOAA or NASA implies they think people in 1937 didn't know how to read thermometers. One day Jane/Lonny might realize that their TOBS adjustments depend on NOAA and NASA thinking that people in 1937 knew how to read thermometers and clocks. Then Jane/Lonny might retract his baseless accusation that NOAA and NASA hold such a ridiculous position.

What makes you think I'm ignorant about homogenization? None of this is new. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-12]

Do you know what "iteratively homogenized" means? They tortured the data until it threw up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Again, that's not the most effective way to show that you're not ignorant about homogenization. Instead, maybe you could just admit that all your accusations listed above are completely wrong. Then maybe you could begin to have a productive discussion about incremental improvements to NOAA's temperature adjustments.

Lol.. a scenario that exists largely only in your head and you paint every person who thinks the constitution matters with your brush of ignorance.

Some people will never stop amazing me.