-1=e^ipi

I do have a number of criticisms of the study, and think it could be improved (and was attempting to do so in the climate sensitivity thread; but I put that on hold when I ran into multicollinearity issues because I didn't want to bother learning how to get matlab to work in quad precision), but I still think it's one of the best papers on climate sensitivity and determining how much warming was due to anthropogenic factors. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of the electrical circuit analogy. I think a better way to think about it is that when you start in equilibrium and increase radiative forcing (be it more CO2, more solar activity, less volcanic activity, etc.) then the Earth will tend towards a new equilibrium over time. However, some feedback effects are very fast (such as water vapour) where as other feedbacks are very slow (melting of polar ice-caps) and you have feedbacks of varying timescales anywhere in between. Consider the function of the temperature change vs time due to a perturbation in radiative forcing and call this the impulse response function. What Van Hateren does is try to numerically approximate the impulse response function as a sum of exponential functions with varying timescales. As long as Van Hateren's choice of the exponentials has timescales that are dense enough and span the relevant decay times then his estimate of the impulse response function should be decent. Van Hateren multiplies solar irradiance by 0.7 and then by 0.25 because 0.7 is roughly the Earth's albedo and 0.25 is the ratio of the area of a circle to the surface area of a sphere of similar radius. If anything Van Hateren overestimates the effect of the sun since increasing solar irradiance has a stronger effect in equatorial regions than polar regions (and equatorial regions are less sensitive to changes in radiative forcing); using a grey earth model and also by performing various regressions I think that Van Hateren is overestimating the effect of the sun relative to CO2 by a factor of 2 (I discuss this in the climate sensitivity thread). To account for this effect, plus the fact that Solar Irradiance is strongly correlated with cosmic rays, Van Hateren would have been better off treating the magnitude of changes in solar irradiance relative to the changes in greenhouse gases as a free parameter in his model. Van Hateren does his analysis with just the instrumental data and then redoes the analysis using reconstructed data. I understand your skepticism regarding treerings and you can always ignore the results that use the reconstructed data and just look at the main result of Van Hateren (which is the instrumental period). Personally I think that if one wants to use a reconstructed data set it would be better to use Marcott et al. (which has no tree-rings and reconstructs for the entire Holocene).

Most of the blame goes on Harper + Obama. But Trudeau takes some of the blame. He pulled out of the ISIS mission and really only gave Keystone XL lipservice (the person controlling him, Gerald Butts, is certainly against Keystone XL). Trudeau should have instead used the mission against ISIS to get Keystone XL passed (i.e. tell Obama if he rejects Keystone XL, then Canada will pull out of Syria/Iraq). Also, what both Harper and Trudeau should have done is take a policy where Canada's future CO2 reductions depend on Keystone XL being passed. So if Keystone XL is passed, implement a CO2 tax and make reasonable emission reduction pledges; and if Keystone XL is rejected, have no CO2 tax and make zero emission pledges. But instead both Harper and Trudeau want to make Canada's climate change policy independent of what the US or any other country does.

What decade are you from? The 1950's. In 2015, if any gender is considered incompetent, it's males. They are all evil rapists that should not be around children and need to be taught in universities not to rape. Well the 63% sentencing gap probably adds to this problem. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002 Yep, you are a scapegoat that allows people much richer than you to feel all smug and morally superior.

I think you missed the part about it not being true for everyone.

There are no pro-flat-earth articles either. Communism is a bad economic system, that's why Russia abandoned it, and that's also why there are almost no pro-communist articles. Yes, Mao implemented bad economic policies, which made China suffer economically, which causes China to grow faster today since China is catching up to other countries. Why do you think China's growth only picked up after 1978? That system is more vulnerable to corruption and cronyism. That's because USA and Canada are relatively rich countries. China is poor on a per capita basis. China is catching up to rich countries, which is why it is growing faster. It isn't due to the communist party having good economic policy. Rather, it is due to the communist party having bad economic policy decades ago under Mao.

Sure it does, look at this evidence or a flying spaghetti monster (which Michael will probably take down... at least leave the link): BlackDog, if you still don't get it, I'm comparing white privilege with the flying spaghetti monster. Because the neoprogressives are inherently collectivist. Here's a video that helps explain the collectivistness of neoprogressives.

In other news, people that are exposed to evidence of the flying spaghetti monster are more likely to deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Well the uncertainty of annual temperature anomaly for recent years is about +/- 0.05 C (95% confidence interval) according the the Berkeley Earth data set. There is also an additional +/- 0.05 C on how one relates temperature anomaly to actual temperature. http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt

There are few exceptions to the catholic white males from montreal.

What about the fact that most of our PMs are primary catholic white males from montreal?

.

Or STEM http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract Or government, which favours women in hiring and is overrepresented with women Or being a school teacher or babysitter since there is a stereotype of men with children being pedophiles etc. Do you think the unemployment gap between men and women, especially for younger people, is just a coincidence? This doesn't counter the overall scholarship gap, which is why we see over 60% of university students being female today. Maybe that's because women use it as a method to seek attention or emotional support so chose less effective methods. With men, there is far less emotional support in our society so there is very little reason to perform a suicide with a low rate of success. Yes, because when women get murdered society cares more since society values women more than men. Same reason people care a lot more about girls being kidnapped or killed by Boko Haram than when the same thing happens to boys. Thank you for demonstrating this. Women having a higher rate of murder type X somehow dismisses the fact that men are far more likely to be murdered overall. Source and relevance please. Please provide evidence of this very strong claim. Is this why men work themselves to an early grave by working longer hours in more stressful jobs on average? In order to put their needs ahead of their own rather than support family members? Way to reinforce traditionalism by putting 100% of the agency on men. What we see in society of men asking for help less is primarily due to all the gender conditioning that occurs in society. Men are told to 'man up', 'grow balls' and stop complaining especially because they are supposedly 'privileged'. They've done studies where they have found that mothers, when caring for infants, are far less likely to respond to a crying boy compared to a crying girl. Boys are conditioned from a young age that their concerns will not get responded to so they have to toughen up and be less emotional. This is what causes men asking for help less and is what should be addressed.

This is an anonymous internet forum. For all you know I am an 80 year old black jewish lesbian. I could be making everything up. Same with everyone else here. So it's best to stick to statistics rather than anecdotal evidence. Yet you guys don't like statistics and can't deal with my arguments so instead start trying to infer that I have some hidden motive, am secretly a misogynistic conservative, or whatever in order to dismiss what I write. Then when i get annoyed and bring anecdotal evidence it's now 'oh now we can dismiss what you write because you are projecting'. So if you are a male that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged' and you haven't faced difficulty in life, well then you are clearly privileged so what you say can be dismissed. And if you are a male that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged' and you have faced difficulty in life, well then you are just projecting your difficulties so what you say can be dismissed. And if you are a female that disagrees with the mainstream narrative of 'women oppressed, men privileged', well then you clearly have internalized misogyny so can be dismissed. Seems like your beliefs are pretty dogmatic since you can dismiss any dissenting opinion on the basis of the race and sex of the person who disagrees with you.

It is at a high altitude, but it represents the separation between two cells (Polar, Hadley or Ferrel) and corresponds to a relatively large temperature gradient. It also impacts the movement of storms and pressure systems. In any case, my derivations not only affect the jetstreams, but all Rosby waves (so basically all air traveling east over the Rocky Mountains).

This is the most convincing paper I have seen that suggests most of the warming post 1950 is human caused: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.5177.pdf Thanks. You are one of the few people to do that. I was under the impression that tornadoes are primarily affected by the equatorial-polar temperature gradient (you see lots of tornadoes occur in tornado alley due to warm air from the Gulf mixing with cold air from Canada), where as the effect you describe (more water vapour in the upper troposphere reducing the unevenness in heating between the tropopause and surface) is the mechanism that causes reduced hurricanes. The cloud feedback might be overall negative, but I doubt it is so large as to result in basically zero warming due to increases in atmospheric CO2.

Yes, why choose someone to be prime minister based on merit, policy or accomplishments? Instead we should let some random person with a fancy last name be prime minister for a while before justifying electing them! *sarcasm*

Well I don't think Harper is the brightest of individuals given the fact that he somehow has an economics masters while simultaneously thinking that dropping the GST was a good idea. But I would describe him as having average intelligence. That worked great for the USA under bush, didn't it? Look, I get it. You are insecure over your intelligence. I've been insecure about my intelligence ever since I've suffered brain damage. But I don't think such insecurities justify electing people of low intelligence to office. I spoiled my ballot. I'm bitter about the lack of decent options. But certainly liberal majority was the worst realistic outcome.

Let me add to the list of why I think Trudeau is an idiot. What about his dislike of calculators? "I'm more focused on actually talking about what we're going to do right away for Canadians than sitting there with a calculator which, you know, you guys can do." How about in response to Marc Garneau asking him why he should be chosen as Prime Minister he responded because he won his riding. Well congrats Trudeau, 307 other MPs did as well including some people you are running against. How about his frequent mentions of the middle class and then not defining it? Well later he defined it as people who are working and not living off their savings, which means a CEO earning millions of dollars is 'middle class' but a retired couple with a modest income are not. How about the fact that he goes on about 'how he feels it in his bones' and other such nonsense when trying to justify why he should be Prime Minister in the leaders' debate?

No thanks. I'd rather the person making decisions have a good ability to reason, look at the evidence and make the best decision for the country. Not someone who 'connects' with people with vague empty promises and nice sounding words. But I guess most of the voters are idiots and like someone that makes them less insecure about their lack of intelligence. Must be why George Bush was so popular.

I don't even know where to begin. From his decision to not have ANY policies when trying to get the liberal nomination, to calling Peter Kent a piece of sh*t in the house of commons, to his acceptance of nonsense statistics like women apparently being paid 75% for the same work as men across the country, to his obvious regurgitation and lack of understanding of economic talking points when trying to justify his infrastructure spending (he would repeat interest rates are low, growth is low, debt to GDP ratio is low but not understand that the latter two are only relevant because they affect the first).

39% of the vote = majority now?

It's called strategic voting.

Not when you have the largest population by a large margin (excluding India). I think the Solow model of economic growth is a decent model at explaining this observation. If you want to learn more you can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model But basically, the reason PR China is experiencing higher economic growth than Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Singapore is because they started catching up to western nations later, so there was a larger gap in economic differences and more technological spillovers that PR China could take advantage of. The high economic growth China is experiencing is not because of the wonderfulness of the Communist Party, but rather due to the terrible decisions that the Communist Party made under Mao which held China in poverty for decades more than it needed to be. Japan experienced very large economic growth after WW2. South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore all experienced very high growth during the second half of the 20th century. The reason these rates of economic growth were slower than PR China is primarily because China started growing later. Here is what happens when a country stops doing stupid policies and changes to more sane economic policies (as China did after 1978), economic growth starts to accelerate, peak and then decrease slowly as the country catches up to other countries until that country's growth rate becomes the same as the rich countries. We've seen this occur with Japan, with South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, West Germany after WW2, East Germany and Poland after the end of the Cold War, etc. China's growth has peaked and is slowing down. It will continue to slow down for the next 2 decades after which China will hopefully become a developed country. Here is a simple graph that demonstrates this effect. Japan used to be much poorer than the USA and after the Meiji restoration they started to catch up. After the end of WW2, their rate of economic growth started to accelerate even more due to adopting better economic polices. Eventually the standard of living in Japan reached comparable levels with the USA, and now Japan, USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc. all have comparable rates of real GDP per capita growth of 2% per year. Because Taiwan, Korea and Japan has already developed. PR China is just catching up due to the fact that the communist kept them poor for decades and lagging behind Taiwan, Korea and Japan. The North Korean government only exists because PR China backed them in the Korean War. The existence of the North Korean government is due to PR China.

So you would prefer I don't back up claims with supporting evidence? Okay then, I guess women are paid 75% of what men are paid for the same work and 1 in 4 women will get raped in their lifetime if that's the standard of evidence you like. Hurray for the wonderful claims made by Obama and Trudeau. Your continued dismissal of the problems faced by a large group of people are microaggressions. And I don't even take the position that being white is a net disadvantage in our society. But male, most likely if you are a millennial in an urban area. People will talk about how the life expectancy gap, the homeless gap, the suicide gap, the criminal sentencing gap, the violent crime victim gap, etc. are evidence that blacks are disadvantaged relative to whites, but somehow that same criteria doesn't apply when discussing outcome differences between men and women.

I used to dismiss a lot of my experiences as 'the grass being greener on the other side' but recent developments in my life and society at large has changed my position greatly (as well as learning about differing perspectives on gender issues). Whether women or men have it 'worse off' is going to depend greatly on many factors. 50 years ago men generally did have it better off relative to women. But times change. The experience of baby boomers is going to vary relative to that of millennials. The experience of people in rural areas will vary compared to urban areas. And even for people in the same city of the same generation, someone growing up in a traditionalist family will have different experiences compared to someone in a non-traditionalist family. But for a millennial living in an urban area growing up in a non-traditionalist family such as myself, there is basically zero benefit to being male (except maybe some really minor things like not getting catcalled, not getting periods, having the ability to reach higher on shelves and arguably the ability to pee standing up (though this is debatable)) and only disadvantages. This is really apparent if you are in need of help or are a victim of a violent crime. If you are about to get mugged and assaulted and call out for help, do you think that people in cars passing by that have full view of everything will stop to help or at least call the cops if you are male? No, you aren't worth their time. Instead you deserve to have brain damage, get victim blamed by your supposed loved ones and have your concerns get dismissed by physicians. Also, having a twin sister so that you can witness year after year of double standards helps you observe sexist discrimination in society.