Just keep in mind the example of Saudi Arabia.
Just keep in mind the example of Saudi Arabia.
I'd settle for simply voting in people who listen to science. No need to change your precious lifestyle, just stop blocking the modernisation of our infrastructure, and the rest will follow from there.
I'll see your Nobel Laureate, and raise you 36 Nobel Laureates.
Not that any of their opinions matter half as much as a practicing climatologist's, since expertise in the field is the only way to reach an informed conclusion. By contrast, your chosen authority freely admits:
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned..."
Maybe this is a more useful picture, rather than a single cherry-picked datapoint.
The good news is, as expected we're getting more rainfall overall, as humidity rises with temperature. The bad news is, some important specific areas are getting quite a lot less. Sucks to be a farmer living there.
Click here to see the uncorrected data graphed alongside the main corrected analyses (source: Berkeley Earth via Ars Technica).
Hopefully this makes it abundantly clear that the raw data still shows an obvious warming trend even before known problems are removed. It also shows how little difference the corrections have actually made, particularly in the last 75 years.
Of course El Nino contributed. But it's still hotter than every other El Nino year we've ever seen.
Go AIs weren't expected to beat humans for another 10 years though - if that. In 2014 the top programs could only sometimes beat professional-level humans, even with a four-stone handicap, and Grand Masters were a different level, let alone beating the world best. Monte Carlo tree searches make it possible, but they need a good evaluator to guide the simulations. If your simulations aren't good enough then your statistical samples aren't representative, and the best pre-programmed Go evaluator heuristics just weren't in the same league.
AlphaGo's evaluator is what sets it apart, not more searches. It uses layered neural networks, trained against millions of human moves then against each other, to greatly improve their guided simulations, which make it possible to use Monte Carlo searches much more effectively. It was this improved evaluator that enabled AlphaGo to be the first program to beat a professional player (Fan Hui) without a handicap, despite evaluating thousands of times fewer positions than Deep Blue did against Kasparov.
By "equivalent temperature increase", I imagine you're looking only at surface temperatures? (not that you've ever cited anything for these assertions you regularly throw out)
Have you considered where else that energy might be going? Because scientists have:
Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence)
The real data is all there, fully sourced and cited - if you can bring yourself to face it. But if you think have an equally reputable source that says otherwise, you should probably cite it, else we all may laugh at you just like we do the other religious extremists trying to justify nonsense with faith.
Apparently he can't even do that.
Thank you for explaining my joke. Note to self: the word 'baseload' really triggers people.
Solar isn't baseload. They'd need some sort of crazy energy storage device.
Well, some were gaoled. But mostly low-level, none of the big fish.
This trend has continued much longer than the solar cycle, or the ENSO, PDO, and ADO cycles - yet it's far too rapid to be due to the longer cycles like Milankovitch orbital variations. Nobody has found any evidence of a medium-length natural cycle that would fit the bill. But known human CO2 emissions have a calculated effect that fits the observed trend very nicely.
Exec 1: So what went wrong this time? The phone looked great - lots of grunt, the latest dual cameras, real waterproofing after we ditched Exec 3's ridiculous modules idea. And that new 18:9 screen was fantastic, large yet easy to hold.. I don't understand, it had all the boxes ticked - the spec nerds should have loved it!
Exec 2: That's just it - the nerds we marketed it at all got so completely distracted by that unreduced 18:9 ratio, they forgot to buy the phone. Our sales were down 6/8ths.
Exec 1: Sigh. Fine, I'll just move to Apple - their customers don't care about reduced ports or whatever.
Exec 2: I'm going to Amazon myself. I hear their next phone will be called the Prime - the nerds will *have* to love that one.
Rather than linking to a selectively-quoting blog, just cite the source directly (assuming you actually want to hear what it says). I suggest Section 2.6, or at least the Extreme Events executive summary on page 162.
While there is a lack of sufficient data in some areas, the executive summary cites increases in heatwaves and heavy precipitation events, and significant changes in droughts (more in some areas, less in others). Tropical cyclones are stronger in the North Atlantic, though trends elsewhere are not so certain. These are all "meteorological events".
But hey, your link's selective observation about thunderstorms specifically is about right - with the important caveat that we don't actually know what the trends really are because we haven't studied them closely enough yet.
You've been Berkeley'ed!