-1=e^ipi

A google search of North American Rainbelt did not yield any useful definition of this term. Are you referring to the mean annual latitude of the Northern Polar Jetstream along the North American West Coast? Could you please elaborate on what you mean? I do not see how this necessarily follows from your earlier claim. The CO2 fertilization effect will be positive everywhere. The South West continental US may get drier, but most of the rest of the US should get wetter on average. On average, the rate of moisture transfer between oceans and continents should increase from global warming due to the Clausius Clapeyron relation, thus the continents will get overall wetter even after taking evaporation into account. I get the impression that your perception on the expected impacts of climate change is very skewed, but I can't really blame you given the large amounts of misinformation that is propagated by the media. Or perhaps someone has a different conclusion as to what the optimal policy response to global warming is based on their reasoning and understanding of the evidence. This is a very strong claim. If you can demonstrate this claim to be true then I suggest that you provide your justification to the IPCC and other organizations because I am sure they would greatly appreciate the fact that you have conclusively figured out the answer to this for them. This is like the claim some theists make that the only reason people are atheists is because they want to sin. Why is the possibility that someone has a different conclusion based on the evidence & methodology available to them outside of the realm of possibility?

I think this claim is too strong. Some mitigation might be optimal but I don't think anyone in this thread has sufficient evidence to know if that is true or not given our current information. Anyway, hopefully this decade reasonable individuals such as Juddith Curry will help us figure out what the best policy is. Except CO2 isn't poison. The binary perception of the world that many climate change alarmists have never ceases to amuse me. Is burning fossil fuels to heat a hospital that is treating sick children a bad thing? Whether burning fossil fuels is 'good' or 'bad' depends what the fossil fuels are being used for. These are very strong claims. Could you please back these claims up with empirical evidence and reasoning? Again, a very strong claim. Please back it up.

How are you defining men? I'm also not sure if your claim is true under any reasonable definition. Female reporters are frequently allowed in male change rooms of professional teams.

Black people are not the same as White people. People with blue eyes are not the same as people with brown eyes. People that have green as their favourite colour are not the same as people that have red as their favourite colour. Should these groups of people also be treated differently simply for not being the same? Are you saying that your desire for genders to be treated differently is limited to change rooms? By 'gender' do you mean gender identity, phenotypical sex or genetic sex because you seem to be mixing them up.

Should people be treated differently based on their 'gender'? If so, why?

A Pigouvian Tax would make more sense since it could help offset other taxes.

You mean how the jetstream had a larger amplitude than normal and a smaller wavelength than normal and was arguably in a resonant state for a while? That is expected from theory. Also weather != climate. Alarmism != Science. But it is your choice if you wish to let your Just Cause Corruption blind your reason.

On Guard for Thee - how do you reconcile your beliefs on Droughts & Climate change with the empirical evidence I have presented in this thread (vegetation changes since the last glacial maximum, the 4.2, 5.9 and 8.2 kiloyear events, plus desertification since the Holocene Climate Optimum) as well as the physical mechanism I explained where by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation the rate of moisture transfer between oceans and continents should increase due to global warming, which should make continents wetter on average even after taking into account evaporation? With respect the the Australian Drought, Australia was much more desertified during the last glacial maximum when global temperatures were 4 C cooler than today. Although, if the Earth warms due to global warming, then the Southern Tropical Jetstream should move southward, which may change wind patterns over the south of the continent to be more Easterly and less Westerly. If you look at a contour map of Australia, you will notice that Australia's main mountain range is the Great Dividing Range along the East Coast. One of the reasons why Australia is such a dry continent is because the Great Dividing Range prevents moisture from traveling from the Pacific Ocean to areas west of the Great Dividing Range (another reason is that it is located at a latitude of the Southern Tropical Jetstream). Now if the Southern Tropical Jetstream moves southward and winds become more Easterly along the south of the continent, then this could cause Southern Australia west of the Great Dividing range to get drier since they will receive less moisture from the Indian & Southern Oceans due to changing wind patterns (but more from the Pacific, although most of this is blocked off). Though the Northern two thirds of the Continent should get wetter since wind is primarily Easterly there already and the Great Dividing Range is lower. So this might mean that we can expect everything East of the Great Dividing Range + Everything North of ~ 30 S to get wetter, but maybe a portion of Australia South of ~30 S and West of the Great Dividing Range to get drier. With respect to California, it's an interesting case. One of the reasons for the current drought is arguably because the Northern Polar Jetstream is stuck in a resonant state where a High Pressure system is over California and a lot of the moisture that would normally travel towards California from the Pacific is being diverted Northward to Washington, BC and Alaska. Now it is true that climate change can increase the frequency at which the North Polar Jetstream gets 'stuck' (see my thread here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23461-effectsimplications-of-climate-change-on-jetstreams/),but California is currently at the southern tip of influence from the Northern Polar Jetstream, and if climate change causes the Northern Polar jetstream to shift Northward, then it becomes a priori indeterminant if California will be more greatly influenced by these resonant phenomena. However, California is also at a latitude where it is strongly influenced by the Northern Tropical Jetstream; if that shifts Northward due to climate change then winds will become more Easterly and less Westerly over California. Since the North American Cordillera is to the East of California (thus blocks a lot of moisture traveling Eastward towards California) this change in weather patterns could make California more dry. However, if that occurs then Texas should become more wet, so it is a bit of a tradeoff. So overall, the continents should become more wet due to climate change, but some places might become more dry such as California or South Western Australia. Anyway, perhaps I need to perform some more calculations to get a better idea of expected changes to rainfall and evaporation changes.

You don't need to justify it to me; that is your choice. I am wondering if at least 1 person can.

Let's see, it says "men are pathetic". It doesn't say some men to imply that the singer is not referring to all men. Then it goes on to say how 'men' judge aesthetic as a measure of a women's worth. The singer is then ashamed on 'behalf of' his sex. What gives the singer the right to represent half the world's population? The song is clearly heteronormative and ignores the existence of non-heterosexual males. It also demonizes an entire sex by generalizing it, thus misandric.

LemonPureLeaf - I don't disagree with your concerns, but could you please start another thread on that topic? I would prefer that this thread focus on gender identity. Btw, I still have yet to see 1 cisgendered person justify their gender identity. You would think that with all the cisgendered people in this thread, that at least 1 person could explain to me why they are cisgendered and what it means to them to identify with a gender.

@ A/C - The song generalizes men (especially how they view women) and suggests that all men are pathetic. It is heteronormative and misandric.

Maybe you seek truth and believe that your beliefs are the most justified based on the evidence are wish to challenge your beliefs / other beliefs? No, I guess not.

Thank you for your heteronormative and misandric view point A/C. *sarcasm*

This is quickly descending into an objectivity vs subjectivity 'debate'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29 But not true for other people. And your claim that it's nobody else's business might not be true to other people. See where subjectivism gets us? Nowhere. Okay genius, explain this to me. My perception is that our society is not based on accepting that perceptions are as valid as reality to the individual. Since you believe that our society is based on accepting that perceptions are as valid as reality to the individual, then you must accept my perception that our society is not based on accepting that perceptions are as valid as reality to the individual. Subjectivism isn't consistent. Both are reality. People being stupid/deluded, believing in dogmatic nonsense or suffering from cognitive dissonance does not imply that there is no objective reality. Both. The glass is both half full and half empty. Opinion is based on more than just perception. It is also based on one's methodology to use the information from perception to form beliefs. Some people are irrational, some people suffer from cognitive dissonance, some people have a confirmation bias, some people use religious dogma, some people follow the scientific method, etc.

On the idea that a cooler global climate = drier and more desert like conditions, where as a warmer global climate = wetter and less desert like conditions, I would like to point to the 4.2 kiloyear event, the 5.9 kiloyear event and the 8.2 kiloyear event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event In all 3 cases, global cooling, specifically in the North Atlantic, caused increased aridisation of the Sahara, Arabia and elsewhere. This had many detrimental effects on civilizations in those areas. Also, if you look at the first ancient civilizations (Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Indus Valley) these places were a lot wetter and less arid during the mid-Holocene. Today, conditions are much drier and these areas are very desert-like. Since the Holocene optimum, eccentricity, precession and obliquity of the Earth's orbit have all changed to make the Earth gradually cooler (without human GHG emissions, Earth would start to go into an ice age in ~1500 years). So perhaps the increased desertification of these areas is due to Milankovitch effects.

No it isn't. The right to self defense only applies if you have reasonable evidence to support your belief that your life is in danger. If you go around killing people cause you think they are all aliens in disguise then you will either end up dead, in jail or in a mental institute.

I tried adding sea level data as a forcing. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/bintanja2005/bintanja2005.txt The median estimate of climate sensitivity drops to ~4C, but the certainty gets absurdly large because sea level is strongly correlated with GHG forcing. The other issue is that the bintanja sea level reconstruction arguably has a lot of model specification error and isn't 100% based on empirical data. I could use something like http://www.highstand.org/erohling/Rohling-papers/Rohling%20et%20al%20Nat%20Geosc_%20data%20supplement.xls, but that only goes back 500,000 years and not the full 800,000. I don't think adding sea level as an indicator of forcing is a good idea. Overall, it doesn't seem that much confidence can be placed on Pleistocene data compared to the Instrumental data. Even the Holocene data gave more confident results than the Pleistocene data.

So are Eunuch's not male? How about intersex people with ambiguous genitalia? How about transmen?

So are you saying that gender identity depends on accepting a gender role? But what about intersex individuals?

Personally I find the usage of sex and gender can be ambiguous at times, but do you not agree that the following are distinct?: Gender Identity, Genetic Sex, Phenotypical Sex.

You are mixing up gender identity with sexual orientation a bit here. But anyway... I get gender issues can get complicated, but I'm still at a loss to the following: What does it mean to identify as a gender in the absence of gender roles? I don't understand how anyone that rejects gender roles as relics of the past can identify with a gender. Yet the vast majority of people identify with a gender (are either cisgendered or transgendered). So surely someone can enlighten me on the thought process on identifying with a gender. Is it just a matter of having cognitive dissonance?

So I tried estimating a Van Hateren impulse response function from the Pleistocene ice core data. I used dome C data for the past 800,000 years. I multiplied the temperature data by 0.4 to get a proxy of global temperature (a factor of 0.4 is justified by the results of Annan & Hargreaves 2013). ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3deuttemp2007.txt ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/antarctica2015co2.xls ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-ch4-2008.txt ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-n2o-2010-800k.txt The N2O data has a few gaps in the data set. So N2O was regressed as a function of CO2 and CH4, and the CO2 and CH4 data was used as a proxy for N2O (CO2 and CH4 were linearly interpolated to get CO2 and CH4 values for the same years as the N2O data; a linear interpolation was chosen because a higher order interpolation such as a cubic interpolation can behave weirdly if used on a noisy data set unless an arbitrary smoothing parameter is chosen). Greenhouse gas forcing was calculated for each year with either CO2 or CH4 data (the other value being obtained via linear interpolation). Milankovitch data over the past 800,000 years was also obtained. http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Milankovitch/ Mean Annual Solar Irradiance was approximated as 1365.39 W/m^2 times sqrt((1 - 0.0167^2)/(1 - e^2)), where e is the eccentricity of the Earth for a given year. The 1365.39 W/m^2 value was used since it is the average solar irradiance for the past 9400 years according to Steinhilber 2011 (Solar Irradiance estimations aren't really available prior to the Holocene). In addition to Mean Annual Solar Irradiance, two other Milankovitch indices were calculated (sin(o)/(1 - e^2) and -e*sin(o)*sin(p)), where o is obliquity and p is precession. These factors help take into account the spatial and temporal distribution of sunlight across the globe over the Pleistocene. For the model used, it uses a Van Hateren impulse response function with decay times varying from 32 years to 2048 years (32 was chosen because the data isn't temporally resolved enough to do anything smaller and 2048 was chosen since it is more than big enough to account for even the slowest feedbacks such as the ice-albedo feedback). The mathematical model I use is a bit simpler since I treat each temperature observation as a single data point rather than a mean over a time period. Another thing I do is I treat forcing over time to be the linear interpolation of my GHG and Milankovitch data (rather than as a step function). You guys don't seem to like the details, so I will skip them. Note that since the data covers a longer period of time, since my decay times are longer, and since I am not treating slow feedbacks such as the ice-albedo feedback as exogenous, the calculated impulse response function can give me an estimate of the Earth System Sensitivity (ESS). My 95% confidence interval of the ESS is [2.0, 17.0] C with a median estimate of 5.8 C (but this confidence interval doesn't take into account the uncertainty on my choice of the 0.4 factor). However, the ESS is unlikely to be constant over the Pleistocene. The ice-albedo feedback is much stronger in the middle of an ice age when glaciers are located in areas that have more direct sunlight than it is during an interglacial. If I try to allow for the ESS to vary with temperature, my median estimate of ESS (at pre-industrial temperatures) drops to ~ 5 C, but the uncertainty increases significantly due to specification error. Maybe I should use sea-level reconstruction data as a proxy for the slow feedbacks (ice-albedo, sea level rise, vegetation) and use that as a forcing parameter in my model. This would cause the impulse response function to estimate the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) rather than the ESS. This could have an advantage if the ECS is approximately constant with temperature where as the ESS decreases with temperature. Though I would then have the look at the response of sea level to changes in the other forcing parameters. Maybe Nic Lewis is correct when he says that not much confidence can be put into Paleoclimate data relative to Instrumental data.

Rather the opposite. As far as I can tell (someone can correct me if I want), cisgenderism and transgenderism require acceptance of gender roles. But if one rejects gender roles, then one cannot identify as either cisgender or transgender (unless they use cognitive dissonance). From what I can tell, agender is the only gender identity that is compatible with the rejection of gender roles.