-1=e^ipi

Fixed a mistake where I said that the frequency at which a moving jetstream passes over a mid-latitude region is 2λ/vg (should be 2vg/λ). Surprised no one pointed this out.

I don't know what this means.

Fair enough. He misrepresented my position, making the premise of the question flawed. Technically it is not a strawman, even though both involve misrepresentation. I apologize for the error. And no the question isn't reasonable since it misrepresents my claims.

Again, you are strawmaning what my claims were. But as for the timescale of how soon one expects the CO2 fertilization effect to kick in, this effect is basically immediate (or if you prefer, the timescale by which it takes CO2 to diffuse into the atmosphere, which is very quick). Indirect effects on crop yields that result from changes in atmospheric CO2 (changes in global temperatures due to the radiative green house effect or loss of albedo, changes in rainfall patterns, changes in wind speeds, etc.) would of course kick in on a later timescale.

Cause apparently using scientific principles such as occam's razor when discussing issues of science is so wrong... *sarcasm* Again, the same strawman argument despite numerous attempts to explain this to you. I'll try a different method. It's as simple as the difference between a partial derivative and a full derivative. When I say that the effect of CO2 fertilization on crop yields is positive, I am talking about the partial derivative of crop yields with respect to CO2 levels, not the full derivative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_derivative The above nonsense has so many faulty premises it is ridiculous. The 7800 word post isn't a manifesto, there is not '1 point' in the 7800 word post there are many, the physical mechanism described in the post applies to past, present and future, not just the future, and your claim that the model contradicts observed heat waves is nonsense since it allows for resonance phenomena. 'Arguably' was used because that change in duration only occurs if one considers changes in the group velocity of the wave relative to the wavelength; so that would be droughts or floods that result from a moving wave pattern. But if you are talking about a forced standing wave pattern that forms a resonance, then group velocity shouldn't be used and instead you should consider the rate of change of the wavelength of the forced standing wave pattern over time; if you do this then you get that both the wavelength and the change in the wavelength over time are both proportional to the square root of the zonal wind velocity, thus there should be no expected change in duration based upon the model used. So ultimately, it comes down to the definition of extreme weather events (and the lack of a clear definition is the fault of climate alarmists making their ridiculous claims, not mine). If by extreme weather events you mean resonance phenomena, then no. But if by extreme weather events you include droughts and floods that result from moving Rossby waves, then you can make a decent argument. And again, your claims that I need somehow reconcile some recent heat waves with the physical mechanism described in the 7800 word post... There is no contradiction, so there is nothing to reconcile. It is like insisting that Isaac Newton must reconcile his theory of gravity with the fact that things fall down. What are these 'suggestions' the scientists are making? Your claim is too vague & poorly defined for me to agree or disagree with. There is not single point of the 7800 word post; your premise is wrong. And if you want to know the motivation for the post, I already answered that and it is also in the 7800 word post. So you could actually try reading it...

Oh look, the same strawman argument again. How predictable. Also, please respond to what I write rather than copy paste the same debunked posts. You did not respond to anything I wrote regarding the principle of occam's razor and the burden of evidence at all. By the principle of occam's razor, given the amount of evidence I have provided in support of the CO2 fertilization effect, the burden of evidence is on you to justify your ridiculous assertions that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't not help plant growth and global crop yields. Again, it isn't a manifesto by any reasonable definition. Repeating a lie enough times does not make it true. Also, you cannot summarize what I wrote into a single point, because many points were made and discussed. You can however summarize what I wrote into a summary as I provided at the end of the post. I even wrote a TL;DR to convey the main points of the post for the lazy and/or less scientifically inclined. I'm going to assume that in your incoherent waldo speak you are trying to make the claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 will prolong the duration of resonance phenomena (because that is the only thing that would make sense given the context). I see little reason to believe that this is necessarily true based upon the physical mechanism of Rossby waves.The rate of change of the wavelength of the Rossby wave over time does decrease (proportional to the square root of the zenith wind speed), but the wavelength decreases by an equivalent amount (also proportional to the square root of the zenith wind speed) such that the net change is zero. One could argue that the group velocity of the wave decreases, which would lead to increased duration, but that would be mostly offset by the reduction in the wavelength, and the group velocity isn't what matters in the case of standing waves that form resonant wave patterns, the change in the wavelength over time is what matters (due to a change in zenith wind speed which occurs due to a change in temperature gradient). So if you want to make these assertions, the burden of evidence is on you to provide evidence and give a theoretical explanation. The physics of Rossby waves as far as I can tell does not support your claim of increased duration of resonance phenomena. What is to reconcile? The physics of Rossby waves allow for the possibility of forced standing waves to experience resonance phenomena under the right circumstances. You list 3 cases of resonance phenomena of the Northern Polar Jet Stream... What needs to be reconciled here? There is no contradiction. Wtf are you talking about? When discussing CO2 mitigation, the main question is 'should humans implement CO2 mitigation policies to reduce CO2 output in order to reduce future levels of atmospheric CO2?'. When evaluating that question, it is sort of necessary to discuss what is to be expected in the future under different scenarios that humans can choose from. But somehow, the future no longer matters and you insist that I need to focus on today as I'm not focusing on today enough... I don't get it. What you write does not make sense. Wtf does 'the shifting jet-stream pattern' mean? Please translate from Waldo-speak to coherent English. Are you trying to say that weather patterns will be impacted by changes to the jet-stream pattern over time? If yes then I would agree,but you seem to insist that it's all about 'today' and the future doesn't matter... There does not seem to be coherency or consistency with what you write. That was a resonance phenomenon. They occur and are unusual. What's your point? When people publish scientific papers, they omit the vast majority of the theory and theoretical explanations for 2 reasons: 1. They need to make there publication as short as possible so the journal will accept it since each page costs money. 2. The authors assume that the readers will be other scientists that have already studied in the field for years so they think that explaining physical mechanisms to the level of say a graduate student isn't necessary (let alone a member of the general public). The physical explanation you claim existed was non-existent in the references you provided.

Look WestCoastRunner. The residential schools were wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. That is basic morality. What happened in the past does not justify the indefinite continuation of racist laws. People should have equal rights regardless of race or ancestry; trying to build a nation on racist laws does not work as we have seen by the failure of the reserve system. Rights from where? Can I test these 'rights' in a laboratory? How do I know which 'rights' I have?

Yet you think an unelected monarch from 250 years ago has the right to create racist laws that perpetuate indefinitely...

You really lack the ability to write coherently, don't you? There isn't anything to respond to here because you say nothing of value. Anyway, I'll restate what I meant by 'this will help to increase crop yields globally', because you are taking what I read out of context. Increasing atmospheric CO2 on earth will effect plant growth in many different ways: - It will effect plant growth by affecting temperature. - It will effect plant growth by changing rainfall patterns. - It will effect plant growth by changing available sunlight (from the solar dimming effect & cloud cover) - It will effect plant growth by changing wind patterns - It will effect plant growth via the CO2 fertilization effect (i.e. what you get when other factors are held constant) - etc. What I said is that the effect of the CO2 fertilization effect on plant growth is purely positive. The CO2 fertilization effect will help plant growth since you are increasing the availability of CO2 to be used for photosynthesis. How hard is that for you to comprehend? Are you going to try to strawman that as well? As explained earlier, the 'FACE' study isn't even necessary because the burden of evidence was on you to explain why the CO2 fertilization effect won't help to increase crop yields. And similarly, your 'criticism' that the data does not justify a belief in the CO2 fertilization effect because it only takes place in 1 location also flies in the face of occam's razor and the burden of evidence is on you to justify that somehow the results would be vastly different in say Canada over Germany. It would be like saying that the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 does not justify a belief that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames because it only took place in Cleveland, Ohio. As for the issue of decreased protein content, I acknowledged and addressed that, and I explained why the net effect of CO2 fertilization remains positive: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23716-northern-gateway-pipeline-approved/page-13 Again, the results of your out-of-context IPCC graphic are not statistically significant by any reasonable definition. And even if they were, you've provided no methodology or theoretical model that were used to arrive at these results, meaning that the results are useless because we cannot examine the way by which these results were obtained. That's why when people publish in scientific journals they need to explain their methodology & theoretical model used. You have repeatedly denied that the effect of CO2 fertilization is to increase plant growth. That's the problem, your 'interpretation' is wrong because you can't understand science. Now if you made claims such as 'my differential equation to derive Rossby waves is no good' or 'the data you used to estimate expected change is unreasonable' and explained why you think that is the case, I would be able to respond to that. But just calling the entire post 'a manifesto' and ignoring it doesn't merit a response and there is nothing to respond to. Your definition of 'manifesto' is wrong. What I wrote isn't a 'manifesto' by any reasonable definition. Much like you aren't a 'coffee mug' by any reasonable definition. Could you call it an essay? Sure. Could you call it a review of the scientific principles behind Rossby waves? Sure. But a manifesto? No. Actually, if you read and comprehended what I wrote, you would know that: So I get that we should expect the frequency of resonance phenomena to increase by 67% by 2100 under a no mitigation scenario and somehow you claim that my post does not reconcile with those extreme weather events that 'stall out'? I didn't ignore you pointing to references that explain the physical mechanism. I checked the 'references' that you provided and explained to you that they did not adequately explain the physical mechanism. I then asked for a theoretical model that explains how increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the frequency of these events, which you ignored, and then you ran away from the thread. Of course, not having a theoretical explanation for something doesn't seem to bother you since you approach the issue of climate change dogmatically, which is why you only post out of context statements or graphs from conclusions of scientific papers and don't give a damn about the theoretical model or the methodology used. Furthermore, the lack of explanation was one of the reasons I did my own research and made that 7800 word post, because I wanted to explain the mechanism to other posters to elevate the discussion on climate change. The link between atmospheric CO2 and the frequency of this northern mid-latitude resonance phenomena is not obvious (regardless of what alarmists self-delude themselves into thinking) and the full explanation requires an understanding of graduate-level climate science.

Because you've continually claimed that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist. Do I need to start quoting you? Dude look. Science follows the principle of occam's razor. If I have the position that the CO2 fertilization effect exists, and you have the position that the CO2 fertilization effect does not exist, under no evidence the position that it does not exist is the default position. Thus the burden of evidence would be on me to provide evidence that supports the position that the CO2 fertilization effect exists. If I provide studies of plant growth in enclosed environments that show that plant growth is higher if atmospheric CO2 is increased (as well as a theoretical explanation as to why it occurs, such as the fact that CO2 is used in photosynthesis), that is evidence for the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect and now the more reasonable of the two positions is that the CO2 fertilization effect does exist. If you then insist that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist and that the reason one gets increased plant growth is because the plants are in enclosed settings, the burden of evidence now shifts to you to provide evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist in the 'real world' and to provide a theoretical explanation for why this is the case. If you don't provide evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect doesn't exist 'in the real world' and don't provide a theoretical explanation as to how enclosing an environment magically makes a result which seems to confirm the CO2 fertilization effect, yet insist on your ridiculous position, then you are violating the principle of occam's razor. Your position becomes as ridiculous as insisting that the results at the LHC do not confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson because it is in an enclosed setting. Occam's razor is what allows science to be asymptotically truth approaching, so please respect it. And also this 'reasoning' of you highlights my point that you approach the issue of climate change dogmatically, not scientifically. You don't follow the principle of occam's razor and do not understand the burden of proof/evidence. Despite all the other evidence I provided (tree ring data, fossilized pollen data, 'FACE' studies) none of that was necessary to justify the belief in the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect over the lack of a belief in the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect since I already provided a theoretical explanation + the 'enclosed CO2 studies' so the burden of evidence was now on you, and you provided no evidence to counter the belief in the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect. Yes you did deny the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect since you denied that the effect of CO2 fertilization is the increase plant growth as CO2 levels increase. Anyway, it is a bit sad to see that your 'argument techniques' have now devolved into calling whatever argument I make 'a jackass move', whatever that means.

Here is a video of a person who thinks he is a white man trapped in a black man's body: Racial dysphoria does exist.

Yes, but isn't this sort of a slippery slope argument? You can oppose genital mutilation for young children without opposing 'cross-dressing'.

I agree that the women is probably manipulating her kids. But I don't really understand your misgivings towards people that 'want to normalize cross dressing'. What clothes someone wants to wear doesn't change their sex or gender, so I don't really see the big deal. Why care if people want to wear 'opposite gender' clothes if they want to? It harms no-one.

I never claimed it to be a monolithic group. Western governments have indirectly supported it by supporting terrorists in Syria. Many people in Saudi Arabia support it through the system of zakat.

Saying 1 race is more or less environmentally conscious than another race is a racist statement.

Showing that someone's argument is not valid is not a 'jackass move' it is just using logic. Your position of ignoring data of how plant growth is affected by CO2 because the plants grew in enclosed environments (which is sort of needed to control for CO2...) is as ridiculous as ignoring data of the existence of Higgs Bosons because the Large Hadrons that are collided in the LHC are in an enclosed environment. Not to mention, I provided historical evidence (tree ring data & fossilized pollen data) to verify this effect, provided links to various reputable scientific organizations showing that they agree with the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect, provided evolutionary evidence that the CO2 fertilization effect exists such as the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants like corn, and have explained that the CO2 fertilization effect is easily understood if you passed high school and know what photosynthesis is. But apparently non of that matters to you! Your worse than a creationist... Your denial tactics consist on confusing claims about the CO2 fertilization effect with claims about the overall effect of climate change on plant growth, using nonsense confusing language to distract from previous evidence, or make the ridiculous assertion that experimental evidence can never be used because it is not real world. Also, one of the articles referenced by Icebound in the other thread references a scientific paper that does an open air study on CO2 fertilization on wheat. As expected, the study finds that crop yields increase if you increase atmospheric CO2? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00230.x/abstract Do you now agree with the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect? Or are you going to do something else like claim that Icebound is a concern troll, or that the study was not 'real world' enough for you? 'This' is a pronoun. In the context of when I used that sentence, 'this' meant 'the CO2 fertilization effect'. But what you are doing is you are taking my 'this' and performing a strawman argument (yet again) by replacing it with a noun that I did not intent it to represent. Also, why can't you write plainly? Do you think using cryptic grammar, word-choice and paragraph form makes you sound smarter or something? Because it doesn't. None of what you wrote refuted my request for you to explain the theoretical model and methodology used to arrive at the 'conclusions' that you posted out of context. In science, theory and methodology are sort of important, especially when trying to understand the relevance of the conclusions. It's not a bold statement because they give the percentiles in the graph. The results in the graph are not statistically significant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance What I wrote wasn't a 'manifesto' by any reasonable definition. It is closer to an essay or scientific report. Do you consider all essays to be manifestos now? Of course there is no counter. Because you make no points or arguments to counter and address nothing I wrote in the 'expected effects on jetstreams' thread.

No they won't. Many sunni muslims (especially all of the extremists) consider Shia Muslims to be apostates, kaffir, idolaters, etc. Also, if the west wanted to maximize strife between the two factions then they would support Shia not Sunni since the Sunni are more powerful. The west helped extremists in Syria not due to some motive of maximizing strife, but due to ignorance and stupidity. The US is primarily aligned with Sunni Islam over Shia Islam for purely historical reasons. They are allies with Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia has been sending them oil since the 1930's. They are allied against Iran because of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and because of the geopolitical situation of the cold war. George Bush stupidly thought that he could bring 'democracy' to Iraq and that after everything would be peaceful and dandy, and the Iraqi's would be thankful to the Americans for freeing them from the evil dictator. He didn't not consider cultural or religious differences in Iraq. Obama stupidly supported the Arab spring without skepticism or concern that islamists might hijack the movement. He even aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood well before the Arab spring (for example, his speech in Cairo in 2009). Obama's political correctness also prevented him from making better decisions. 'The muslims are the victims of the evil colonist west' is probably what he probably thought. Therefore, he apologized to muslims for american's exercising free speech rather than defend free speech (innocence of muslims), he downplayed the role of islamists in the attack at Benghazi (blaming again the video), he aligned himself with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, he financed Islamic terrorists in Syria, and western governments would have invaded Syria if Putin did not 'outplay' them. Similarly, David Cameron denied Islam had anything to do with the murder of Lee Rigby for exactly the same reasons. There also seems to be this concept among many western politicians that if there is a dictator, that this dictator is evil, and that anyone that opposes this dictator must be good. Thus western governments supporting cannibal terrorists in Syria. This type of political correct post colonial nonsense is one of the reasons the west is in the situation it is in. Radical Islam has problems, which is why the West should NEVER side with Islamists under any circumstances. The only entities behind the ISIS are Islam, Saudi Arabia and Western governments stupidly supporting terrorists in Syria.

Threat of violence... you mean like law enforcement? Aren't there democracies all around the world that require violence to keep order? This doesn't really justify why having FPTP system is better than electing a single president every 4 years. Certainly, such a system would be more effective at passing laws, minority governments are impossible (which is your main 'reason' for preferring FPTP over proportional representation), the system would be cheaper, and you would still be able to throw the government out every 4 years. You could still have a constitution that limits power, guarantees fair courts and reasonable rights & freedoms, etc. Also, by what criteria are you determining if something has worked 'reasonably well'? Governments having 100% of the power with only 38% of the vote is 'reasonably well' to you? How does the FPTP system working 'reasonably well' prevent a proportional system from also working 'reasonably well'? Why is local representation important, but not representation for the diverse political views of Canadians? Aren't local regions already represented by local governments? Why duplicate this in parliament? As for increasing number of parties... are you really satisfied with the current parties? Many people dislike all of their current options.

^ Racist Comment. Exactly what scenario are you imagining in order for a 'possible' oil spill in Kitimat to be so bad that it 'wrecks' the coastline near Stanley Park? This sounds as ridiculous as the idiots that think Fukushima has poisoned the entire Pacific Ocean. Oh look, another idiot that doesn't understand the meaning of the word manifesto.

Obama shouldn't have funded Islamic terrorists in Syria in the first place.

Clearly I don't understand 'what the point of democracy' is by your definition. Wtf kind of definition is this? A dictator that peacefully chooses himself to run the government satisfies this definition. If this is the case, why not get rid of parliament and the senate and just elect a president every 4 years. This president will have the authority to make all laws and appoint anyone he/she wants to government. Couldn't you also say 'FPTP destroys any accountability because no single MP has the power to do anything meaningful which means they can't be held to account for failures to do what needs to be done'? Therefore we should get ride of MPs and ridings and just elect a single president? Certainly would be cheaper than having 338 MPs...

If someone has an understanding of theoretical physics then they will have an understanding of basic logic and reason (something which most of the population lacks) plus the ability to do mathematics (which most political parties lack when they release their budget). Also physics is more relevant to issues of climate change or energy policy than gender studies will ever be.

Cause the arab spring never happened. *sarcasm* There are very few places where this is effective. Saudi Arabia and North Korea are probably the best examples. Saudi Arabia's stability has a lot to the US supporting Saudi Arabia and insane oil revenues to finance military. North Korea is a result of complete isolation/censor and a confucian culture. But such authoritarian governments will get significant riots if the people are allowed freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas. Well I never claimed that democracy was perfect. Okay, can I restate my claim then? How about: "The primary benefit of democracy in developed countries (that have freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc.) is that it discourages riots and rebellions."? Unfortunately, no such society exists to test this hypothesis.

Perhaps it is because you do not understand the basics principles of science? You initiated the 'derailing' (if you want to call it that) on page 4... If your above 'argument' is valid, then how is the below not valid: "What I have said is that when it's the sole basis for your absolute and definitive claim... and it's to the exclusion of all real-world physics factors... that sir, is absurd. You're tailoring an isolated controlled environment for maximum collision of large hadrons, without regard to limiting influences. It's bloody amazing you even attempt to keep your charade up/active. Therefore, collisions at the LHC is not evidence for the existence of Higgs Bosons." I guess it is very hard for you to understand the difference between the CO2 fertilization effect and the effect of CO2 levels on crop levels. It is you who has difficulty reading. I never claimed that you did not give the source. I claimed that you did not explain the methodology or theoretical model used to arrive at the conclusions. Do you not understand the difference? Probably not since you seem to only understand dogma... Sorry, I made a minor error with regards to misreading the text. I apologize. Oh look, I can admit I was wrong. Too bad you cannot do that... Also, it is all moot because of none of the results are statistically significant. You do understand what that means, right? What definition of manifesto are you using, because yours does not seem to fit any definitions that I have encountered. From wiki: "A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government." You statement, even if true, does not mean that you cannot use past evidence to validate the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect. Sorry but could you rephrase this in non-incoherent Waldo-speak?

Well because I don't agree with your claim. I don't think that just because the majority disagrees with another group, that the other group should not have any representation. So you need to justify why your claim is true. This may be surprising to you, but Ontario doesn't have proportional representation. So your 'example' is meaningless. Lol, I guess you are too good for defining things then... If you make claims, and you use unclear definitions, define what you mean when asked. Yes, yes it is unfair. The green party for example gets 0% representation despite 5%+ support. It did morph. If you want to be understood then be clear and clearly define wtf you mean. How are voters failing to understand the system? Because they vote differently from you?