Yes, neutrinos have been detected in this type of detector for many, many years - in 1987 the neutrino's from SN1987A were detected by several of these detectors.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
For the actual papers, consult the "sources" listing at the end of each Wikipedia entry.
Keep drinking the cool-aid, their latest report doesn't "admit" what you claim here, not by a long shot - it actually states that they're even more certain now that most of the recent warming is caused by Anthropogenic CO2. What has happened is that the right wing climate denialosphere are spinning like they've never spun before, trying to deform and cherry-pick statements from the report into what they want it to say... And you're clearly lapping it up uncritically, probably because it reinforces what you *want* to hear...
And Dr. Richard Lindzen may be a "climate scientist" (I would certainly dispute the "top" prefix....), but he doesn't walk the walk like he talks the talk - he's always up for yapping away in the media about not trusting models & stuff, but when he actually goes about publishing articles, those recognise the reality of AGW... At this point, he's little more than a paid shill for the Oil industry...
Markott et al 2013 - temperature reconstruction of the Holocene.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Before AGW, we'de been in a slow cooling phase for 5,000 years- yeah, we emerged from an ice age 12,000 years ago, but we haven't been "emerging from it since".
But let's not let *facts* get in the way of our preconceptions..
What Steve Goddard "forgets" to mention is that it's actually only the Antarctic sea ice that is growing, while the land-ice there is melting away ever faster...
And the 67% more ice in 2013 compared to 2012 still puts 2013 in 6th lowest position for arctic ice-extent in the observational record, curiously together with 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012) - so it is lower than *any* observed ice-extent prior to 2007... Doing better than the single worst year on record is not proof that nothing's wrong, it's just proof of the fact that there are significant annual fluctuations in ice-extent, primarily due to short-term weather.
Average thickness and ice-volume in the Arctic are actually far more relevant measurements (as unlike "extent", they measure the *amount* of ice, not how thinly it's spread out) and those have been dropping almost without fail year after year after year...
Antarctic *sea ice* is "growing" (most of it actually melts away each summer) - Antarctic land ice is shrinking, in part because it's melting away and in part because it's more quickly flowing to the sea, where it contributes to the sea ice growth.
Sea ice growth around Antarctica is a *consequence* of global warming, not proof against it...
And the situation is profoundly different for the Antarctic then for the Arctic, due precisely to the completely different land/sea configurations at both poles...
uhm - Antarctic *sea ice* is growing (and that only in winter, it mostly melts away in summer), in part because Antarctic land ice is shrinking - some of it is melting, some of it is floating to sea faster than before...
So, no imminent collapse of AGW...
The whole idea is conceptually idiotic. You spend a strong force of reaction mass ejection to maintain a weak force of gravity at a constant distance from the target mass producing a microscopic tug on the object. This guy must have received his degree in a box of crackerjack.
Place the reaction mass generator (be it ion jet, or rocket) directly on the mass and divert it.
Amazing that they didn't think of that!!! You must be a genius...
Or... maybe they did consider that, then realised that many, many small asteroids are apparently heaps of weakly bound rubble, just as bad as a solid object when hitting the surface of earth, but impossible to attach a rocket to.
The "gravity tug" concept works the same regardless of the structural integrity of the asteroid, *that* is why this is the proposed mechanism, not because Tyson is stupid...
Bet you feel a lot less like a genius now, smarty-pants?
They're going to use radar to map the asteroid, which will give us a complete 3D picture of it at much higher resolution than the HST can give - the distances in space are enormous, even supposing Hubble was easily capable of tracking this asteroid (it isn't, the asteroid is moving too fast) the biggest it gets is about 10-15 pixels large. And considering that HST is in an orbit about 550km above the surface of the earth, and the asteroid is passing us by at 25000km it's not even that much "closer" to it than telescopes on earth are.
"causes CO2 release --> causes more warming."
Well, basic physics shows that an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere *will* cause more warming - the only thing that might happen in the real world is that some other mechanism would then kick in to counteract the warming caused by increased CO2 - in reality, we see the opposite happening, all sorts of mechanisms add on to the CO2-caused warming, reduction in ice & snow cover caused by the CO2-induced warming decrease albedo, thereby increasing heat-capture, a warmer world has more humidity in the atmosphere, and since water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, that *also* increases heat-capture.
So unless you can "demonstrate" some credible mechanism that counteracts the CO2-induced warming (which, remember, is predicted and easily demonstrated using very very basic physics), the burden of proof lies with you - this is not shown in just the atmospheric modules you so denigrate, this is shown in simple physics experiments *and* in satellite measurements of the energy-flux onto and away from our planet...
The lag in CO2 is not adequately explained by the Milankovitch cycle. The lag occurs in ever piece of the past we can get a handle on, and not just at 800
years--and at every level of detail we can look at. I've looked--you might try it before hanging your hat on this argument.
Previous temperature rises out of ice-ages typically took about 5000 years, with CO2 lagging 800 years from the start of the warming, the change which causes the start *is* Milankovitch cycles, the lag is explained by inherent lag in "the system" (The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents.)
"at every level of detail we can look at" - what does that even mean in this context?
Maybe a little less dismissive, arrogant cocksuredness from the lovers of scientific models and prognostication would be more persuasive.
The dismissive, arrogent cocksuredness comes from the complete and total frustration that denialists always return to the same old tired, disproved crap and no matter how many times you try to explain, point towards the evidence and talk talk talk, they always turn around and spout the same bullshit over and over again (in your case, the old denialist holdfast that all our evidence comes from unreliable computer models - no it doesn't, it comes from basic physics, geology, biology, astronomy, etc... and even if all the "climate models" were to fall off the face of the planet, there'd still be a mountain of evidence pointing to CO2 as the main culprit of current global warming and another mountain of evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is human-induced.
Nope, but correlation can be *evidence* for causation, especially if physical mechanisms have been shown to exist which would explain the causation...
Just one small problem with your hypothesis, warmer air is *not* "capable of diluting more CO2", Nitrogen/Oxygen and CO2 can exist in *any* ratio.
Besides that, the "heat" produced directly by human activity is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total heat input to the planet by the Sun, in the grand scheme of things it is negligeable.
What is, however, not negligeable is the fact that since we've started burning fossil fuels on a larger scale, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone from 285ppm to roughly 400ppm, and we know from isotope fraction analysis that this increase is caused almost entirely from carbon from fossil fuel sources.
The chain is thus: Humans burn more fossil fuels --> CO2 concentrations rise ---> the environment warms up.
You wouldn't even collect an *ig*Nobel prize with a hypothesis so far removed from any of the scientific data...
I still wonder about those graphs that show CO2 lagging temperature by 800 years during past global warming events.
You still wonder about something that has been *explained* umpteen times, I can image not being interested enough to look stuff up, but please don't involve yourself in a debate if your knowledge is 20 years out of date... (I'm sorry to come over all agressive, but I've this exact argument trotted out for over a decade.)
Long-term climate change (tens to hundreds of thousands of years) is influenced by changes in the orbit of the moon (google Milankovitch if you want).
Slight change in orbit --> causes slight warming --> causes CO2 release --> causes more warming ---> switches between ice-ages & intermediate periods.
The delta-T between the "change in orbit" and the "CO2 release" was about 800 years, which accounts for the lag.
The current change is *different* becuase the CO2 release is not caused by changes in orbit, but by man burning millions of years of stored carbon in a few centuries.
So we're skipping the first bit that ook 800 years, and going almost instantaneously to the "more warming" bit... which is why we are now seeing faster warming of the planet than was ever seen in the climatological records, going back hundreds of thousands of years (and probably much, much longer, but the farther back we go, the harder it becomes to measure how fast temperature changes actually happened).
Weeds grow better with increased CO2 concentration than food-plants. Not all plants are food, Humans don't like weeds.
Food-plants grown under increased CO2 show decreased nutritional value per weight, so even if you get more growth, the end result is less nutritious...
In the real world of plant-growing, CO2 is rarely the limiting factor, usually water, nitrogen or soil-minerals are the limiting factor. Increased CO2 leads to increased temperature, often leading to increased drought during the growing season, so plants grow *less* despite increased CO2 concentrations.
See: reality is more complicated than you pretend it to be...
While plenty of people may dispute the deity of Jesus Christ, there's no shortage of historical documentation that he existed, and had a major influence on society at the time
Citation needed?
Because actually, there isn't... Around that time there were plenty of Jewish sects and messiah-type figures running around in that part of the world, so the figure Jesus is undoubtedly based on one or more of them, but there is actually virtually no "evidence" of the existence of one Jesus of Nasareth for which the sources cannot be traced back to the "Christian" religious sect of the first few centuries AD - and no documentary evidence at all that can be dated to earlier than 50-100 years *after* his death.
That doesn't mean he didn't exist, but only that there is little concrete evidence of it - but after all, that's what faith is for, right, believing in shit without evidence?
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
