I was 17 at the time. I remember watching Armstrong get out of the capsule and walking around then later that afternoon looking up at the Moon in the sky in awe to thing that human beings were up there.
I think the mods fell victim to a Poe there.
Now, now - you need to do better than that. All you've done is declare to me that the evidence is in there somewhere for me to find.
Sounds to me like you want it all handed to you on a silver platter. Why should I do your work for you?
Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the southern hemisphere in 1991. Why don't I see a corresponding dip in the temperature data (in either of the Hadcrut4 data or the IPCC report)?
Actually Pinatubo is 15 degrees north of the Equator. You need to zoom in to see the details in the temperature record. Here is temperatures from GISSTEMP, HADCRUT4, UAH and RSS plotted from 1980 to 1999. They all clearly show a 2 to 3 year dip in temperatures after the 1982 eruption of El Chichon (in Mexico) and after the 1991 eruption of Pinatubo.
If pollution causes cooling, then the warming trend between 1910 and 1943 would have been a cooling trend.
Evidence? The degree of industrialization during and after WW II was much greater than before. Also, there was a marked increase in solar forcing from 1900 to around 1960. There were other factors too.
As any advocate would know, when you have a favorable outcome you want to show, you present the evidence most favorable to that outcome.
The authors of the IPCC AR5 WG1 report are all scientists working in the various fields presented in the report. They are unpaid by the IPCC other than to cover travel and lodging expenses. You're accusing them of wanting a predetermined outcome rather than honestly presenting the science as they see it. The problem with that view is these are all smart guys. They know there is an underlying reality that science studies that can't be changed by opinions. That reality is there to be discovered by anyone who puts in the work to investigate it. They know that if they are wrong sooner or later it will be discovered. They know if they are found to have purposely manipulated the science for political reasons their reputations would be destroyed. I'm still waiting for someone to turn climate science on its head.
You and I both know that there are valid papers from opposing views that are not explained in that report.
There are very few papers that have an opposing point of view. Well less than 5% of papers published in the field.
We need more than a facial "scientific" demonstration to come to a rational conclusion.
I think you meant facile (or maybe farcial). You appear to be doing what you accuse scientists of doing. You have a predetermined outcome you want (or at least you believe the current science must be wrong) so you scientists must be doing the same thing. But as I said there is a reality behind it all that can't be changed. It's not something that is debatable. Why would any scientist worth the name do anything but follow the evidence where it leads?
Your expectation that if what climate scientists are saying is true then temperatures should rise in lockstep with changes in CO2 levels is unrealistic. Over the short run (less than around 30 years) other factors can override the slow but steady underlying signal of warming from CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
For instance during and after WW II there was a massive increase in industrialization with little in the way of pollution controls. That dumped a lot of aerosols into the atmosphere which reflected a lot of sunlight before it could reach the surface. Beginning in the late 1960's we instituted pollution controls that reduced the problem allowing the underlying signal to take over again. The industrialization of China and SE Asia over the past couple decades has had similar effects and they have yet to institute effective pollution controls.
Other natural factors that can affect the global warming signal on the short term include volcanoes (there was a measurable cooling effect from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991), changes in the oceans (where over 90% of the heat from global warming goes) such as ENSO and the PDO.
Just because the temperature record doesn't show a steady rise in lockstep with CO2 rises doesn't mean the underlying signal isn't there.
As far as the IPCC report goes you need to dig deeper. The details are ultimately in the thousands of scientific papers cited by the report. The summaries are edited by politicians but the WG 1 report itself is written by scientists. They simplify their presentation to make it more accessible to non-scientists but as I say the real details are in the cited scientific papers.
No, I would not be that guy. You can go straight to the data sources and get the data and plot it on your own. It's going to take a lot more work though so I doubt you'll do that. You probably don't have the knowledge to use most of them. Here's some links:
Raw data:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...
http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/d...
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu...
http://www.argo.net/
Processed data:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/ha...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monit...
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t...
http://berkeleyearth.org/about...
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/da...
http://www.remss.com/measureme...
Links to other sources for other climate related data and source code for models:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The 1964 Alaska earthquake was magnitude 9.2. I remember when it happened because the resulting tsunami killed 4 kids on the Oregon coast and 12 people in Crescent City, CA.
Overrated, eh? If you don't like the source here's the HADCRUT3 unadjusted vs. adjusted data from Wood For Trees: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h... Not a lot of difference there either.
California
California has some pretty big earthquakes but for the really big quakes you need a subduction zone like the Cascadia that covers from just south of the Oregon border up to southern British Columbia or the Aleutian Megathrust zone off of southern Alaska. Those produce magnitude 9+ quakes like the one off of Indonesia a few years ago. Fortunately they don't happen that often.
Snowden didn't plan to stay in Russia, he was just passing through (on his way to Ecuador I think) when his passport was revoked. Then he was stuck in Russia.
If McCain/Palin had been elected we'd be at war with Iran right now. McCain is a warmonger.
To me it appears likely that Ukrainian separatists were responsible for shooting down the airplane. Is it possible the missile was from some captured Ukrainian military installation rather than supplied recently by the Russians?
There were people from a number of countries on the airplane. According to NPR the State Department reported there were 23 US citizens on board.
Not as many as you might think. World population only hit 1 billion around 1804 and didn't get to 2 billion until around 1927. It was still under 3 billion when I was born in 1952.
WoodForTrees is a good accessible source for temperature from several different datasets.
I still didn't find any direct assertion that supports your claim there. But in the short run of the next 10-20 years the problem isn't acute and if that's all you care about SLR wouldn't be that big an impediment to buying such property. Personally I wouldn't think of buying any property that's less than around 50 feet above sea level on the west coast (where I live), as much for the potential tsunami danger as for sea level rise.
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
