X.1: The Royal Navy's Mystery Submarine grabs a reader's attention from the start. The title indicates a dramatic read full of suspense and intrigue, but the book provides more with the truth about the often misrepresented boat. Branfill-Cook, a retired insurance writer and current translator of French books on historical and military subjects, seeks to clarify historical misinformation about X.1 and bring the story of the initially hidden, often ignored, and certainly ill-fated submarine to light.
To achieve this goal, the author delivers twelve chapters and three appendices. The first chapter provides a history of giant submarines that influenced X.1's design and armament. These submarines range from early twentieth- century German-built Russian-owned versions to German U-boats that the British captured during World War I. Although the author is thorough in his discussion of the submarines, prior familiarization with the historical circumstances occurring in this period would be beneficial and make the reading experience more pleasurable for the reader.
Chapters two through six explore the design plans, armament, equipment and construction of X.1. These five chapters include many plan drawings and renderings of the interior of the boat. Each portion of the boat is discussed, and the reader gains an extensive knowledge of X.1 from the keel to the exterior paint schemes., At no point would these be considered easy reading, but the chapters are integral to a full understanding of X.1.
Life aboard ship, trials, excursions and exercises fill the next five chapters. This is the section of the book that explores the intrigue and human element of X.1. The "secret" boat was announced by a newspaper at its launch, causing political upheaval. The unrest continued when copies of X.1's design plans were found in the possession of a foreign spy. Not all of the stories are dramatic, and it is easy and enjoyable to be drawn into the stories of everyday life for the crew.
The concluding chapter is Branfill-Cook's interpretation and opinion regarding the life and eventual perceived failure of X.1. The author successfully brings together the prior eleven chapters to support his arguments. The reasons for the unfulfilled potential of X.1 and its tragic end are explored and possible explanations discussed. In the following appendices, the author provides extracts from X.1's log book, copies of the plans and a comparison of gun types used on the boat.


text:
Dr. Holt Proposed To Dean Munsch On 'Scream Queens,' But They Didn't Get A Happy Ending
By Alaina Urquhart-White
On Tuesday night, we finally reached the Scream Queens Season 2 finale and things only got even more crazy and convoluted. It's honestly been difficult to keep up with the relationships this season, as characters have been bouncing between each and other and constantly changing statuses. But no one has played this game worse than Doctor Brock Holt. And in the season finale, it all culminated in Brock proposing to Dean Munsch.
However, it actually makes perfect sense. You see, Brock conspired with Hester to marry Dean Munsch before she dies of her terminal illness. The reason for the unlikely nuptials was to make sure that he was her next of kin when she died. That way, all of that absurd wealth that she has been hanging on to since Chad left his family fortune to her will actually be transferred right into Dr. Holt's waiting, eager hands. Of course, Hester had plans for them to run away and live their lives like the end of The Shawshank Redemption, but it seemed like that might not pan out either. See, Brock had assured Chanel that when Dean Munsch kicks the inevitable bucket, he will "pry that ring off her cold, dead finger" and give it to her.
Basically, Dr. Holt is playing a supremely dangerous game with some really dangerous players. In the end, however, it seems that it all worked out for him, as we last saw him living on Blood Island... with Hester, who managed to get all of Munsch's money even with the dean still alive.
In their world, that's a happy ending, and Holt should just be thankful that he got out of this unscathed. As plenty of other Scream Queens characters have learned, you do not want to be on Chanel's bad side.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Previously Spring Hill, this place has always had terrific food. It's odd to remember that the bar portion was very underwhelming shortly after it opened. Spring Hill subsequently expanded the tiny (8 seats) bar to a small (18 seats) bar, started serving very fine cocktails, and just last Feb 8, renamed themselves Ma'ono and shifted emphasis to "mid-Pacific" dishes and their very popular fried whole chickens. They fry 30 chickens per night, and if you plan on having one, you should mention in while making your reservation.
This also is capable of produce curl, straighten and flip styles.Let's encounter it we probably not one of them several of or three spare pairs, and also a faulty arranged of GHD's is no use to anybody. It is famed being a life-style model due to its classy and stylish motorbike North Face jackets Louis Vuitton pas cher.I will suppose most guys are fairly particular about mens North Face coats, in phrases of value, size, colors etc.


1.) Can I use Annuities Pilot along with an adviser?
2.) Why not just buy a fixed portfolio of funds/subaccounts and hold them indefinitely?
3.) When do you release your latest monthly AP Rankings and Advisory?
4.) Where do I log-in to see the latest Rankings and Advisory?
5.) Why can't I see the Current Rankings and Advisory after I log in?
6.) Why not send out your Current Rankings and Advisory by email?
7.) How and where can I change my password and/or email address for the monthly alerts?
8.) Where can I get subscription service problems resolved or service related questions answered?
9.) What do I do if I miss a monthly issue?
10.) I just retired. Why do I need Annuities Pilot?
11.) When is the best time to begin following Annuities Pilot?
12.) I missed a monthly issue of AP. When should I look to see whether I should make a "Roll-Up"?
13.) Why is your site often slow to respond after issuing an alerts email?
Sure. However, many advisers use "goal based" investment strategies--often a cover-up for ineffective non-performance based and non-benchmarked results. Just make sure that your adviser's goals are your goals and not his goals. Goals based advisers often have expensive, built-in conflicts of interest along with chronic, undocumented under performance. Many are more interested in selling you heavy fee or commission based investments that you really don't need or want. Make sure your adviser provides you with optimal investment choices based on coldly objective risk/reward criteria. The best alternative would be to ask your adviser to implement our Ranking System for you. That way you can be sure you'll be getting your "fee's" worth.
This "buy-and-hold" strategy is simply doesn't work long-term for those wanting to limit market risk while maximizing returns. The concept has been popularized by mutual fund managers who have a built-in financial conflicts of interest. They discourage investors from leaving their funds by slapping on outrageous early redemption fees and back end loads, and yet they constantly trade frequently within their own funds in an attempt to enhance performance!
It's easy to see what happened to even diversified stock funds during the 2000-2003 and 2007-2009 bear markets. Those "buy-and-hold" investors lost--and lost big time. Any simple fund selection algorithm with basic long-term timing would have saved investors from having to suffer those losses. The Annuities Pilot fund selection strategy is never perfect, but applied effectively and professionally it beats "buy-and-hold" cold sober year after year.
5.) Why can't I see the Current Rankings after I log in?
Unless you completely annuitize (which we only rarely recommend), you will still be investing your retirement plan assets in securities, and you will therefore continue to need keep those investments optimized and maximized for a given level of risk. In such circumstances, near or after retirement, we always recommend you track our Conservative Portfolio t reduce your exposure to market risk.
Generally, the closer you are to the time when you intend to draw down from your retirement plan the less market risk you would want to accept. On the other hand the 90's came with 20%+ yearly returns on many indexes for several years in a row. Annuities Pilot will always limit your exposure to market risk and conserve your capital whether the markets are rising or falling. Historically, the Annuities Pilot Conservative Portfolio carries about the same level of market risk exposure as a passively managed conservative account invested largely in the bond funds. You will be sheltered in a falling stock market from more serious short term losses.
21.) How do I easily compare rankings between different insurance companies and VA providers?
22.) Should I Roll-Up more frequently than every 90 days if I can find a higher performing fund/subaccount?
23.) For success do I need to find a fund/subaccount that is always ranked in the "green" section of your Ranking Tables?
24.) My plan offers similarly ranked annuity subaccounts and mutual funds. Which should I choose?
25.) Some of my retirement plan's funds or annuity subaccounts aren't listed on your Ranking Tables. Can you add them for me?
26.) Are money market funds ranked right along with both stock and bond funds/subaccounts?
27.) Should I avoid leveraged and inverse funds and subaccounts?
28.) How often should I Rebalance my retirement plan account to concur with your Allocation Table?
29.) Sometimes I see what looks like a duplicate ranking table record? What do I do?
30.) What does a minus (-) ranking suggest?
If your retirement plan administrator offers you a wide mix of mutual funds and annuity subaccounts (which is often the case) the simplest way to find the rankings for each is to use our handy Combined Ranking Tables for all ranked mutual funds and annuity subaccounts. You can easily search there by the name of the investment and then compare their rankings. All Ranking Tables show the first column sorted by Pilot Rank with the same entries sorted in the second column by investment name. Since most retirement plan administrators offer such a wide mix of investments, this may be your best place and method to start your search for the highest ranked funds and annuity subaccounts available to you.
You might improve your plan's year-end performance slightly (assuming you can switch funds/subaccounts without an added charge by your plan administrator), but it may not be worth the additional effort. You may, however, be able to reduce some of the damage to your retirement plan from a new bear market from more frequent Roll-Ups--but again, the differences in final performance will be marginal. Furthermore, all Annuities Pilot risked based momentum signals and parameters were optimized for a 90-day holding period.
The simple answer is no. Naturally, the higher ranked funds/subaccounts will almost always perform the best over time. While it would be preferable to always choose funds/subaccounts ranked in the "green" sections of our Ranking Tables, merely Rolling-Up to a higher ranked fund/subaccount after your 90-day holding period will still dramatically improve your retirement plan's performance. Staying in the "green" sections of the Ranking Tables will always be optimal, but very few plan administrators will provide you with that capability. Most plans offer limited investment options to help preserve operating costs for their members. Just Rolling-Up to a higher ranked investment every 90-days will produce a remarkable improvement in your retirement plan's total return.
Remember, all annuity subaccounts are based on underlying mutual funds or indexes. Since the insurance company or VA provider of the annuity subaccounts often charge an internal fee or premium for their supposed "added" value, the all-in costs for the "parent" mutual funds are likely to be cheaper than the annuity subaccounts on which they are based. There may be some exceptions, but this is generally a good "rule of thumb" to follow. If the mutual fund is ranked similarly to the available annuity subaccount, even if the subaccount is ranked slightly higher, we would still suggest choosing the mutual fund.
Yes, see "How our Rankings Systems Work". This protects your retirement plan's equity when either the stock or bond market enters a substantial period of decline. The money market fund(s) will always rise to the tops of the Rankings Tables for your Roll-Ups since they will carry higher rankings than the negatively performing stocks and/or bonds. This tactic will shelter your retirement plan from protracted declines in stocks, bonds or both stocks and bonds. In fact we often rank money market funds from other fund/annuity providers right along with the providers own money market funds to increase the odds of at least one money market fund rotating up to the top of a Ranking Table in the early stages of a bear market.
While we prefer to avoid the leveraged and inverse funds, subaccounts and ETFs, some retirement plan holders may prefer to include them. However, it has been our experience, after many years of research and system back testing, that the use of such leveraged and inverse funds not only does not add to total returns but decreases those returns. Therefore, in our opinion, if such a fund rises to the top of a Ranking Table we believe it should be avoided. In such an instance we would prefer to chose the next most highly ranked investment choice that might be available to you in your plan. Typical providers of such funds would include such offerings from Profunds, Rydex, Direxion Funds and some others.
Frequent Rebalancing to match our Allocation Table percentages for stocks and bonds is not that critical to your plan's performance. We would suggest that you Rebalance to match the percentages in your favorite AP Portfolio every time you do a Roll-Up or every six months whichever comes first. The only exception to that rule is when we chose a different Pilot Portfolio as optimal. If we "green" highlight a different Portfolio as optimal you should Rebalance to the new Portfolio percentages of that Portfolio...if you choose to switch Portfolios at all.
Occassionally, there may be what appears to be a duplicate fund or annuity subaccount record within a particular Ranking Table. If it is not a duplicate it would be a VERY similar investment vehicle. Regardless, the Pilot Rank would be the same for both. Therefore you can safely disregard an seeming duplicates.
If you see a minus (-) ranking in any one of our tables is indicates that the particular fund/annuity subaccount is ranked in the bottom half of that table. Minus (-) ranked investments are prime candidates for doing a Roll-Up. If one of your investment choices came from a recent Roll-Up and is now ranked minus (now in the bottom half of the table) we would suggest a Roll-Up be done even if the minimum 90-day holding period has not as yet expired.
Don't test the retirement waters alone. Put your retirement ship a league ahead by requesting your FREE BACK ISSUE or by SUBSCRIBING at our special reduced rates today!


text:
Monument record MDR447 - Primrose Vale Mill (site of) and stone cottages, Hayfield
Type and Period (4)
WORKERS COTTAGE (Victorian - 1850 AD to 1870 AD)
TANNERY (Stuart to Georgian - 1700 AD to 1800 AD?)
PAPER MILL (Georgian - 1800 AD to 1830 AD)
CHIMNEY (Georgian - 1790 AD to 1810 AD)
Protected Status/Designation
None recorded
Loading documents & images
At SK 0315 8800 is the mill pond of the former Primrose Vale Mill, the second mill on this tributary of the Sett. Primrose Vale cottages, a short row of stone cottages, were presumably associated with the mill, along with a short isolated stone chimney on the hillside behind them. The mill was formerly the colour and pigment works of John Bennett. (1) Photograph collection. (2) The mill was once a tannery and a buckram factory; the flue and chimney survive. The cottages are said to have been built in c. 1860. (3) Tapering stone chimney with courses reducing in width to the top of the chimney, c. 1800. The mill, formerly used for paper, later colour making and fustion cutting, has been demolished. (4) Primrose Vale mill is recorded in directories of the 1830s as being in the ownership of the Slack family, who also ran the Bank Vale and Swallowhouse paper mills further south. (5)
Sources/Archives (5)
<1> SDR4751 Bibliographic reference: Fowkes, D. 1984. Derbyshire Industrial Archaeology - A Gazetteer of Sites. Part I. Borough of High Peak. p 23.
<2> SDR18971 Photograph: Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA). Slide Collection. 7533.1-2.
<3> SDR6994 Bibliographic reference: Harris, H. 1971. Industrial Archaeology of the Peak District. p 216.
<4> SDR19289 Unpublished document: Manchester University Extra-mural Dept.. Hayfield in 1851.
<5> SDR19967 Article in serial: Schmoller, T. 1994. 'Some notes on Derbyshire paper mills, part 1', The Quarterly. Issue no. 9 (January), pp 1-5.
Find a placename, postcode or grid reference
Base layer opacity
The map is limited to 3000 records per layer so not all records are being displayed for this area. Zoom in to see more.
Map title
Show corner coordinates
Grid reference
Centred SK 0313 8797 (60m by 114m) (Centre)
HAYFIELD, HIGH PEAK, DERBYSHIRE
Related Monuments/Buildings (0)
Related Events/Activities (0)
External Links (0)
Record last edited
Sep 30 2009 3:16PM
Comments and Feedback
Do you have any more information about this record? Please feel free to comment with information and photographs, or ask any questions, using the "Disqus" tool below. Comments are moderated, and we aim to respond/publish as soon as possible.


text:
Q: What are the terms to use when talking about things you want to sell to other people? I'm searching for a term used when talking about things you want to sell to other people. Any synonyms for them would be appreciated to.
I mean the items, products, or other stuff you want to sell

A: line

11 : merchandise or services of the same general class for sale or regularly available

ex. a full line of electrical supplies
Merriam Webster
When I was a kid, I used to work at a local HoJo's as a bellhop and I often heard traveling salesmen use the word when introducing themselves to others of the same ilk.
e.g.

"What's your line?"

A: Truck could be the word you're looking for

Articles of commerce; trade goods

[American Heritage Dictionary]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Hardy Crank Wind Fly Reel 2 1/2"
For sale here is a 2 1/2" diameter Hardy dark bronzed crank wind reel. From early 1890s with nicely waisted crank handle and tapered, domed ebonite handle. Constant click check in both directions and no undue play. All pillars and foot appear to be original and in good order. A good example of this early Hardy reel with "Enclosed ovalâ" logo. The dark colour and unmarked foot suggest this reel spent a lifetime in a cupboard.
This reel is no longer for sale.


text:
import { ComponentFixture, TestBed } from '@angular/core/testing';
import { Result } from 'app/entities/result.model';
import { ResultHistoryComponent } from 'app/overview/result-history/result-history.component';
import { MockDirective, MockPipe } from 'ng-mocks';
import { ArtemisDatePipe } from 'app/shared/pipes/artemis-date.pipe';
import { NgbTooltip } from '@ng-bootstrap/ng-bootstrap';
import { ArtemisTestModule } from '../../../test.module';
import { faCheck, faTimes } from '@fortawesome/free-solid-svg-icons';

describe('ResultHistoryComponent', () => {
    let component: ResultHistoryComponent;
    let fixture: ComponentFixture<ResultHistoryComponent>;
    let result: Result;

    beforeEach(() => {
        result = new Result();

        return TestBed.configureTestingModule({
            imports: [ArtemisTestModule],
            declarations: [ResultHistoryComponent, MockPipe(ArtemisDatePipe), MockDirective(NgbTooltip)],
        })
            .compileComponents()
            .then(() => {
                fixture = TestBed.createComponent(ResultHistoryComponent);
                component = fixture.componentInstance;
            });
    });

    afterEach(() => {
        jest.restoreAllMocks();
    });

    it('should return the right values for result score', () => {
        fixture.detectChanges();
        result.score = 85;
        expect(component.resultIcon(result)).toEqual(faCheck);
        expect(component.resultClass(result)).toEqual('success');

        result.score = 50;
        expect(component.resultIcon(result)).toEqual(faTimes);
        expect(component.resultClass(result)).toEqual('warning');

        result.score = 30;
        expect(component.resultClass(result)).toEqual('danger');
    });

    it('should test absolute result', () => {
        fixture.detectChanges();

        expect(component.absoluteResult(result)).toEqual(0);

        result.resultString = 'failed';
        expect(component.absoluteResult(result)).toEqual(null);

        result.resultString = 'passed';
        expect(component.absoluteResult(result)).toEqual(null);

        result.resultString = 'no_right_value';
        expect(component.absoluteResult(result)).toEqual(0);

        result.resultString = '100 points';
        expect(component.absoluteResult(result)).toEqual(100);
    });
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


How do I prevent my company from becoming a victim of these criminals?
In general, sound security practices that are enforced at every level of your company will go a long way in protecting your business from fraud. Develop a formal action plan as a "toll fraud counter measures" policy in your company. Have procedures in place so employees know who to contact (within your company and your carrier) for emergencies and what short-term actions should be taken. Work out what facilities can be cut in emergencies until security is restored.


This permanent job opening (Horsham) is for an academic medical center.
EM Physician Opportunity in Poconos Mountains Area!
Major cities such as Philadelphia and New York are also only a short drive away.
Gnaden Huetten Campus Emergency Department.
These locations are less than a twenty minute drive to the popular tourist town of Jim Thorpe.
BC/BE in Emergency Medicine, or Internal Medicine/Family Practice with at least 1 year of ED experience.
Note: Flexibility is required as you will be cross-credentialed to work at both the Gnaden Huetten campus and Palmerton campus.
Envision Physician Services is seeking Full Time Physicians in Lehighton, PA and Palmerton, PA.
The nearby Pocono Mountains and the Appalachian Trail allow for endless outdoor activities surrounded by beautiful scenery throughout all 4 seasons.
Lehighton and Palmerton are located in Pennsylvania's Carbon County.
EM Physician Opportunity in Waynesburg, PA!
This permanent emergency medicine job (Waynesburg) is from a hospital-owned practice.
Envision Physician Services is seeking a Full-Time Night Emergency Medicine Physicians for Washington Health System - Greene in Waynesburg, PA.
Residents have the best of both worlds.
Waynesburg is growing but it still maintains its neighborly feel.
Waynesburg as an excellent launching point for short drives to spectacular and breathtaking views and sights in Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Formally known as Southwest Regional Medical Center, Washington Health System-Greene, Greene County's only acute care hospital, is a community centered hospital offering 24-hour emergency services, as well a full range of diagnostic imaging specialties and is Proud to carry The Joint Commission Gold Seal of Approval.
The rural lifestyle is flavored by the past and reflects the agricultural and mining heritage of this area.
The emergency department's treatment rooms have immediate access to laboratory testing and diagnostic service, which range from x-ray to CT exams.
The inpatient services consist of 18 medical/surgical beds, 5 intermediate care unit beds and 26 behavioral health beds.
Competitive Compensation and Sign-on Bonus available.
Located near I-79, one is minutes from Pittsburgh and major league sports, cultural events, world-class medical care, and the urban experience.
Full-time Benefits: Medical, Dental, Vision, 401K, Elective Deferral Plan, and Business Expense Reimbursement Account.
BC/BE in Emergency Medicine, or Family Medicine with ED experience.
Stroll along the quaint streets and find unique shops and restaurants, and just two blocks from the heart of downtown, a wonderful park system exists.
Waynesburg, PA features a variety of charming amenities often found in more densely populated areas.
This permanent emergency medicine job (Towanda) is from a hospital-owned practice.
Guthrie Towanda Memorial Hospital is a non-profit full-service community hospital that provides inpatient, outpatient, critical care, surgery, radiology, specialized therapies, emergency care and emergency medical transport services.
Bradford County is located in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania near the Southern Tier of New York.
Several recreational areas are available to residents of Towanda including Towanda Memorial Park, Third Ward Playground and a beautiful walking trail along the Merrill Parkway and Susquehanna River.
Guthrie Towanda Memorial Hospital serves Bradford and Sullivan counties as well as the surrounding communities.
Towanda Borough is located on the bank of the Susquehanna River and is the county seat of Bradford County.
The county abounds with natural beauty, strong communities and great people.
Guthrie Towanda Memorial Hospital has 35 licensed inpatient beds, 68 skilled nursing beds, 94 personal care beds, and employs the providers of Community Health Associates LLC.
We are a seeking a board certified or board eligible Emergency Medicine Physician for Towanda, Pennsylvania.
As part of the Marcellus Shale region, this area is one of the largest reservoirs of natural gas in the world.
Towanda Village was laid out in 1812 and Towanda Borough was officially established in 1828.
BC/BE Emergency Medicine, Internal Medicine, Family Practice.
This is terrific place to live, work, and visit.
This permanent emergency medicine job (Drexel Hill) is from a hospital-owned practice.
TeamHealth provides 41 hours of physician and 36 hours of advanced practice clinician coverage daily.
Located in the suburbs 7 miles west of Philadelphia this hospital is a part of the 4 hospital health system, Crozer-Keystone Health System.
The ED has a 13% admission rate with a 3% transfer rate.
TeamHealth has an excellent opportunity for a full-time physician to join our emergency medicine team at Delaware County Memorial Hospital in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania.
The ED sees an annual patient volume of 33,000 and has 28 beds within the ED.


To Anthon van Rappard. The Hague, Friday, 24 November 1882.
The letter still hasn't been found, and contained a fifty-franc note. For the time being, though, let's wait a little longer; it's being investigated. I told the man at the printer's about the accident, and so far he's been good enough not to press me about the costs of the stones. For that matter, the stones are in his hands and he runs no risk, or very little. So as to your proposal — in an emergency I'd very much like to avail myself of it, and it's a 1v:3 helping hand for me and I dare to go a few steps further, but it may not be necessary and the letter may turn up. It's most certainly an encouragement to redouble my efforts, and to prove to you that I put a lot of work into it: I drew the digger in 12 different poses and am still searching for better ones.
He's a splendidly fine model, a real veteran digger. Last Sunday I had Van der Weele, painter and also drawing master at the high school here,8 and he saw the various drawings of orphan men and urged me to make a large composition with them, although I would consider that premature as yet, I need to have even more studies. The coffee drinker is one of them.
Herewith a woodcut after Frank Holl.9 This brings me to what you say about a batch of magazines you've bought.
I'll tell you why it matters a very great deal to me to make an effort with the lithographs. If I can manage to assemble a number of good stones (one or two are bound to go wrong now and again!), this will enable me to apply for work, in England, for example, as well. It goes without saying that one has more chance of success if one can immediately show work, for instance by sending proofs of lithographs, than if one has to get by with words alone. Sending drawings isn't an alternative, since they can easily be lost. This new process enables me to work for a lithographic printer far away without having to send stones. Just today I bought myself a new kind of ink and a new kind of crayon (copal crayon)12 for this purpose.
My address these days is No. 136 Schenkweg.13 I would like to have your opinion about these proofs I'm sending. If it's possible for me to rectify mistakes I'll happily do so. Still, one has to be careful once something has been put on, and can't control everything. I believe that the new Worn out will give you some pleasure — I hope to tackle the stone of it tomorrow.
It appears from letter 288 of Sunday, 26 November and Monday, 27 November that Van Gogh has started work on his fifth lithograph, whereas in the present letter that still lies in the future (l. 28), so it must have been written a little earlier. Moreover, the letter cannot have been written on Sunday because Van Gogh had been able to buy crayon 'today' (l. 81). Saturday is also unlikely because he may be going to the printer's 'tomorrow' (ll. 89-90). This is why we have dated the letter to Friday, 24 November 1882. Some time must have passed between this letter and the next one because in letter 288 Van Gogh has gained some experience with the new crayon, which does not yet seem to be the case in the present letter.
The letter was thus written on the same day as letter 286, but later: Van Gogh now has one more drawing of an old man with his head in his hands than he was able to report to Theo (l. 26).
1. The printer Smulders in Spuistraat.
2. Van Rappard already had one lithograph, probably Old man (F 1658 / JH 256 ), and otherwise Sorrow (F 1655 / JH 259 ); for this uncertainty, see letter 284, n. 3. In any case he received the others with this letter and Digger (F 1656 / JH 262 ) and Old man drinking coffee (F 1657 / JH 266 ) as well.
3. The model drawing for the lithograph was probably Old man drinking coffee (F 996a / JH 264 ), or F 1682 / JH 263 . See letter 285, n. 2.
a. 'Hachure' is another word for hatching or shading of short lines.
4. The model drawing for the lithograph Digger is not known.
6. Two drawings connected to the lithograph 'At eternity's gate' (F 1662 / JH 268 ) are known: 'Worn out' (F 997 / JH 267 ), which was the immediate model for the lithograph, and the compositionally different 'At eternity's gate' (F 998 / JH 269). See also letter 286, n. 3.
7. In letter 289 Van Gogh says a little more about the nature of the proposal. When Van Rappard learned (through a letter that is no longer known) that the loss of the letter with money would put an end to the lithographic experiments, he replied: 'don't let that hold you back, and count on me if you can't carry on or need something' (ll. 7-8).
8. Herman van der Weele was a teacher at the secondary school in The Hague and at the Ambachtsschool (technical school).
9. It is not known which engraving after Francis Montague Holl was enclosed.
10. Van Rappard's example may have encouraged Van Gogh to buy a large collection of The Graphic just over a month later; see letters 302 ff.
11. In this context Black and White is the term applied to the engraved magazine illustrations such as those published in The Graphic and The Illustrated London News.
b. Means: 'komt niet in aanmerking' (is not feasible).
12. The hardest types of lithographic crayon are called 'copal' because copal, a fossil resin, is added to them.
13. Van Gogh had been living at this address since July 1882 (see letter 243). Perhaps Van Rappard was still sending letters to the old address (at number 138), although in letter 256 to Van Rappard Van Gogh talked about the 'new studio'.


text:
U.S. NAFTA autos proposal 'not viable,' says Mexico minister
Mexico's Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo met with several U.S. lawmakers this week.
WASHINGTON -- Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo says demands by the Trump administration for a U.S.-specific automotive content requirement in NAFTA was "not viable," and declined to specify when Mexico would formally respond.
At a news conference following a series of meetings with senior U.S. trade officials and lawmakers in Washington on Wednesday, Guajardo said that Mexico was still trying to understand the U.S. proposals that would require 50 per cent of vehicles' value content be produced in the United States as part of updated North American Free Trade Agreement rules.
"I was clear that the domestic content [requirement] is something that is not viable at this point," Guajardo said.
He added that Mexico would eventually make a counterproposal on automotive rules of origin, but declined to specify the timing of that response.
His visit was partly aimed at bolstering support in Congress for NAFTA at a time when tax legislation is consuming lawmakers' attention and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is growing frustrated with the slow pace of NAFTA talks.
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to scrap the trade agreement if it cannot be renegotiated to shrink U.S. trade deficits and return manufacturing jobs to the United States.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said after meeting with Guajardo earlier on Wednesday that congressional Republicans "are determined" to strengthen trade ties with Mexico.
"I expect the administration will continue to work with us to modernize NAFTA and bolster our robust relationship with such an important ally," Ryan said in a statement.
After the last NAFTA negotiating round ended last week, Lighthizer complained that Mexico and Canada had not offered counterproposals to its demands on autos and other major areas aimed at "rebalancing" the trade pact.
The United States also is seeking to lift the regional value content requirement for NAFTA-produced cars and trucks to 85 percent from 62.5 percent. Guajardo said that once Mexico has a firm understanding of the U.S. autos proposal, it can work with its own stakeholders to see what adjustments could be made to regional content for autos.
But he said that the U.S. demand to move to 85 percent regional content within three years was "entirely unrealistic."
Guajardo said he discussed with Lighthizer on Tuesday how to move the talks toward consideration of potential "rebalancing" outcomes. But first, he said Mexico needed to be clear with its American and Canadian counterparts about unacceptable proposals and its priorities for keeping the pact beneficial to all parties.
"We have to start a process of looking at what's next after we complete the modernization effort," he added.
On dispute settlement, Guajardo said that Mexico would be willing to consider some adjustments to the investor-state dispute settlement system, after the United States proposed making the use of such arbitration panels optional.
"We can explore the opt-in, as long as we can define our own opt-in," Guajardo said of the dispute settlement proposal, adding that otherwise, Mexico is "not interested."
At a more limited round of NAFTA talks in mid-December in Washington, Guajardo said it was important to agree on key issues in order to close some NAFTA chapters such as those on food safety, telecommunications, regulatory practices, and digital commerce.


Looking for the right repair shop? We are the auto body repair shop that specializes in collision re..
If your transmission is acting up, bring your vehicle to Bob's Transmissions of West Michigan. You'l..
The heat and friction of the brake system can cause brake parts to wear. We offer brakes repair serv..
Stouch's Auto Repair Shop is your one-stop solution for all your car cares. From regular oil changes..
T & F Tire Service & Supply Company, Inc is a leading auto repair shop offers the best automotive se..


Founded by Mr. Rasheed Ahmed, RSA Geolab, LLC is a full service geotechnical and geosynthetic testing Laboratory. Backed by Mr. Ahmed´s experience spanning over three decades, RSA Geolab, LLC has the ability to respond to testing needs quickly, efficiently and at the right price to our clients. Mr. Ahmed and his staff have handled testing for major projects throughout the United States. When required he has established and directed onsite laboratories at key projects. He has also served as an Adjunct Professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ.
At RSA Geolab LLC, we strive for excellence and understand the importance of geotechnical/geosynthetic testing in a world where waste production and civil construction isn't slowing down anytime soon. We understand our clients have strict deadlines to meet and delays in results can dictate project progression. Therefore, when clients approach us with their projects, they can expect dependable testing achieved with fast turnaround times. Let us show you why so many of our clients decided to choose RSA Geolab for their geotechnical needs. We're committed to not only providing quality results but going above and beyond to ensure our customers are completely satisfied. We welcome you to look through our site to see all we have to offer.
Laboratory testing procedures and equipment are subject to routine audits by both internal and external quality assurance/quality control personnel. Our accurate and reliable results are based on strict adherence to guidance provided by the American Society of Testing Materials, AASHTO, the Geosynthetic Research Institute and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Is designed to produce tensile property data for the control and specification of a planar product manufactured from polymeric material, which is used with soil, rock, earth, or other geotechnical engineering related material as an integral part of a man-made project, structure, or system.
Is a physical property which measures the ability of the material to transmit fluid through pore spaces and fractures in the presence of an applied hydraulic gradient. Darcy's Law defines hydraulic conductivity as the ratio of the average velocity of a fluid through a cross-sectional area to the applied hydraulic gradient.
A direct shear test is a laboratory or field test used by geotechnical engineers to measure the shear strength properties of soil or rock material, or of discontinuities in soil or rock masses. Testing methodology covers the determination of the consolidated drained shear strength of a soil sample in direct shear.
Committed to exceeding your needs. Questions, comments or special requests? We'd love to hear from you, so don't hesitate to reach out today.


I noted when I went to look for it that John Ross's website is offline. John's written many wonderful things, but one that I simply can't let go is is article on the S&W .500 magnum revolver. Found it on the wayback machine, and am hosting it here.


text:
Kelsea Ballerini feels her way through her new poetry book
CAPTION CORRECTS FIRST NAME - Kelsea Ballerini poses for a portrait on Monday, Nov. 15, 2021, in New York. Ballerini released a book of poetry, "Feel Your Way Through." (Photo by Christopher Smith/Invision/AP)
(Christopher Smith/Invision/AP)
By GARY GERARD HAMILTON
Dec. 2, 2021 1:14 PM PT
New York —
Country music star Kelsea Ballerini had no intentions of starting a new job as an author in 2020. She did plan to tour her new album, "Kelsea" — then the coronavirus pandemic shut down most of the world. As COVID-19 all but stopped the touring industry, the Grammy nominee began to express her feelings through poetry.
"I just kept writing and didn't worry about the form of verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, tag — whatever. I just kept writing. And I quickly realized that it was kind of coming out as an autobiography of me processing, not only my feelings as of current, but a lot of stuff from growing up," revealed the star country singer. "It just happened to rhyme because that's always how I've written. And it turned into a book."
"Feel Your Way Through," released last month, is a book of poetry which touches on a variety of subjects, including learning to love herself.
"I've struggled with body image. I've had an eating disorder — all these things that I share in the book. I hope that for anyone reading it that is feeling alone in that journey, they no longer feel that," said Ballerini, who titled the poem "Kangaroo" after a cruel childhood nickname. "That's my main reason. But also for me, like selfishly, just to get it out of me and go, 'Man, here's some truth-telling that I've not told before.'"
The Grammy nominee also penned "His Name Was Ryan" which details witnessing her 15-year-old classmate Ryan McDonald get shot and killed by another classmate in the school cafeteria at Central High School in Knoxville, Tennessee.
"I never even knew if it was part of my story that I would choose to share, but again, going back to looking at the puzzle pieces of my life, and if I'm going to explain that this book is my feelings as a 28-year-old woman, I can't leave it out," said Ballerini. "It's something that happened that has really shaped a lot of the way I am and the way I feel."
Ballerini, who recently experienced a bit of serendipity after wrapping a tour with the Jonas Brothers in October — the same band whose posters she had on her bedroom walls and whose concert she sat in the very last row of after her mom surprised her with tickets — also touched on new music. The " Half of My Hometown " singer, who just won her first two CMA awards last month, returned to the studio six months after releasing "Kelsea."
"After I had time to be like 'music makes me sad' and then I started writing the book, then I was like, 'Alright, let's get back to music, too,'" said Ballerini, who said some of her poems — or at least the emotions behind them — could potentially turn into songs. "It's still so early that I don't know what it's going to end up being, but I certainly have songs that I love, and I'm not rushing myself."
As the superstar artist tiptoes along the very delicate line between country star and pop artist, she says the line is not blurred in her eyes.
"I'm a country artist — I will always categorize myself as that. But I listen to everything. And my first concert was Britney Spears, then I went home to literally a farm. So, I'm a product of my life," said Ballerini, who said she was "very happy… very excited" for the pop princess's recent conservatorship win. "I'm a product of what I listened to growing up, which was everything. And so, I'd be doing a disservice to myself to not include that in what I make. And I just think it's silly to box people in. If art is art, then just let it be that."
While Ballerini's star continues to rise as country music continues to find its new identity in the wake of #MeToo, gender equality and the social justice movements, Ballerini says she wants to be on "The Right Side of History" herself—also the name of a poem that stems from a tweet she received backlash for after popular singer Morgan Wallen was caught on video using a racial slur.
"There is no room to move backwards. There's only room to move forward, and I think even if it happens in baby steps, it needs to continue to happen," said Ballerini. "Every kind of person listens to country and they need to be able to see themselves and hear themselves on the radio. So yeah, I think it's going to be a process and I think it's an important process. And I think we all just need to hold each other accountable to keep moving forward."
Follow Associated Press entertainment journalist Gary Gerard Hamilton with his handle @GaryGHamilton on all social media platforms.
Get U-T Arts & Culture on Thursdays
A San Diego insider's look at what talented artists are bringing to the stage, screen, galleries and more.
Gregory Allen Howard who wrote 'Remember the Titans' dies
Screenwriter Gregory Allen Howard, who skillfully adapted stories of historical Black figures in "Remember the Titans" starring Denzel Washington, "Ali" with Will Smith and "Harriet" with Cynthia Erivo, has died
A federal appeals court in New York is considering whether the Vermont Law and Graduate School modified a pair of large murals when it concealed them behind a wall of panels nearly 30 years later against the artist's wishes
"A Thousand and One," a drama about an impoverished single mother and her son in New York City, won the Sundance Film Festival's grand jury prize in the U.S. dramatic competition, while "Going to Mars: The Nikki Giovanni Project" was awarded the top prize in the U.S. documentary category
This week's new entertainment releases include a fresh album from Shania Twain, the megahit film "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" lands on Disney+ and a new PBS "Frontline" documentary delves into Russian President Vladimir Putin's interaction with the last five U.S. presidents
Sylvia Syms, 'Ice Cold in Alex,' and 'The Queen' star, dies
Actress Sylvia Syms, who starred in classic British films including "Ice Cold in Alex" and "Victim," has died at the aged of 89
Review: Imagination, stunning visuals bring 'The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci' to vivid life at Old Globe
Two decades of memorable quotes from Slash
Review: Disney's 'Frozen' musical tour wows with special effects, scenery and soaring vocals
La Jolla Playhouse's 'Here There Are Blueberries' to examine the secret lives of Holocaust perpetrators
Steely Dan sax veteran Tom Scott set for encore gig with San Diego's Steely Jazz
San Diego Dining and Drinking
For my list of Top 10 San Diego Italian restaurants, I could only find 7
Review: Spectacular 'Hadestown' a haunting story of mythical love in the underworld
All right! Elvis Presley's first 45 turns 60
Review: 'Weathering With You' wraps larger concerns in a surprising modern-day fable
Beyoncé or Adele? Will history be made, or repeated, at the 2023 Grammy Awards? And what about Bad Bunny?
National Entertainment News
Top 20 Global Concert Tours from Pollstar
Review: Joe Henry returns with varied 'kind-word blues' set
Smokey Robinson, 'King of Motown,' to release new solo album
Jesmyn Ward novel 'Let Us Descend' to be published Oct. 3
3 dead, 1 missing as rain pounds New Zealand's largest city
Review: Cannes breakout 'Close' tells of innocence and grief


text:
Q: Printing the position of character in a String i have a method that prints the index of given character in a given String. If String doesn't contain given character the result is -1.
My code looks like this:
public static int strpos(String text, char z) {

    int x = 0;

    char[] array = text.toCharArray();
    for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
        if (array[i] == z) {
            x = i;
            break;
        } else {
            x = -1;
        }
    }
    return x;
}

public static void main(String[] args) {
    System.out.println(strpos("abcdefghc", 'c'));
}

In this situation the result is 2, and if i delete break, the result is 8. How can i modyfi my code to get a result of both 2 and 8?

A: You can't get the result of both with a single return.
You can, however, return an ArrayList<Integer>.
You'll need to:

*

*Initialize the list at the head of the function.

*Each time you find a number, instead of breaking, add it your list.

*When you finish the search, return the list.

That's how you can return multiple values easily.
Also, why is the else there?

A: One solution would be to store the indices in a List<Integer> and change the method to return it:
public static List<Integer> strpos(String text, char z) {
    List<Integer> indices = new ArrayList<>();

    char[] array = text.toCharArray();

    for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
        if (array[i] != z) {
            continue;
        }

        list.add(i);
    }

    return indices.isEmpty() ? Arrays.asList(-1) : indices;
}

A: You can change the return type to List<Integer> and collect all the matching indexes in a list (or another collection of your choice).
And in that case, instead of using -1 as a special value to indicate that a character doesn't exist in the string, return empty list instead,
naturally.
Here's one way to implement that:
List<Integer> strpos(String text, char z) {
    return IntStream.range(0, text.length())
            .filter(i -> text.charAt(i) == z)
            .boxed()
            .collect(Collectors.toList());
}

Alternatively, without Java 8 streams, but benefitting from .indexOf:
List<Integer> strpos(String text, char z) {
    List<Integer> indexes = new ArrayList<>();
    int index = -1;
    while (true) {
        index = text.indexOf(z, index + 1);
        if (index == -1) {
            break;
        }
        indexes.add(index);
    }
    return indexes;
}


text:
Who's putting the "political" in climate science, now?
On 9 April, The Australian published an article titled "Good science isn't about consensus" on its front page.
The New York Times's masthead motto is "All the news that's fit to print." The Australian's might as well be "All the news that fits our prejudice."
Don Aitkin is of course entitled to his opinion (though as the late Senator Moynihan reminded us, he is not entitled to his own facts). The paper could have run his piece as an op ed on the inner pages (though for what purpose, I don't know). But by running it with the prominence they have, you have to wonder at their motivation. Don Aitkin is a political scientist, no doubt eminent in his field. But no one can pretend he is an authority on climate science. What's more, his article contains nothing of any novelty. So what purpose can there be in not only publishing the article, but in giving it the prominence of a page 1 placement? All I can think of is that The Australian wishes to continue to stoke controversy -- whether to generate circulation (which doesn't work with me, I stopped buying the paper) or to pursue its own agenda on climate science.
However, since they have done this, and in addition, posted a lengthier paper (an address he gave to the Planning Institute of Australia), his views demand rebuttal. Here it is, based on the lengthier paper.
Arguing about "consensus" is silly. There was a consensus before Einstein's time that Newton had the Laws of Physics stitched up. Einstein found a more general theory. "Consensus" in science is not a deep concept -- just a way of expressing the fact that most scientists do not see the point in arguing over something that has been shown to be valid, and no one has successfully invalidated. There was a similar "consensus" about the link between tobacco and cancer, which the relevant industry attacked vigorously, using similar language to the anti-AGW movement. That consensus remains to be overturned, despite the fact that we still have a lot to learn about the mechanisms of cancer.
He claims that he is "presently agnostic about the central Anthropogenic Global Warming...proposition" but this is not borne out by his article, which dwells on arguments against AGW. To quote Monty Python, that's not debate, it's contradiction.
The "panicky media mood" he talks about is no reason to trash the science, rather to be skeptical about the quality of science journalism in popular media. There was a similarly panicky media mood about global cooling in the 1970s (he quotes Newsweek further on) but if you actually search the scientific literature, there was very little basis in science for this. I don't think you will find a "panicky mood" if you read Science or Nature. A paper has been published showing that 7 papers in the 1970s predicted cooling, compared with 42 predicting warming. The cooling papers attracted only 12% of the citations counted. In other words, even in the 1970s, the evidence available at the time -- Newsweek and other popular media notwithstanding -- was that warming was more supportable than cooling.
Einstein and Feynman on refutation and uncertainty in science: the anti-AGW movement can be accused of a higher degree of certainty with considerably less evidence on their side. Read Bob Carter's polemics. Is there a hint in any of his writing the he could be wrong? On the contrary, there is a bellicose certainty in his writing which I have not found in the scientific literature -- which I find odd from a scientist of his experience (here's a classic example).
"...human beings barely understand 'climate'". Well of course this is a vast field but enormous strides have been made over the last 20 years. I have been following this issue over that period, and the scope and accuracy of the models have improved vastly. To speak of the field in terms that were true 20 years ago is misinformed, I'm afraid. Models developed over that time have for example accurately predicted the effect on climate of a major volcanic eruption.
Urban heat island effect -- I suggest he reads the literature on how this effect has been isolated out. For example, warming in the Arctic cannot be explained by this effect. Studies have been done eliminating urban sites to see if they skew the trend, and statistical techniques like jackknifing have been applied to determine whether a fraction of the stations is skewing the trend. There is an excellent discussion of this issue at the RealClimate site.
Reduction in measuring stations -- the reason for this is the introduction of satellite-based measurement. Satellites can measure bigger areas more accurately (though they do need careful calibration, the source of some of errors which have since been put right).
Uncertainty brushed aside -- this is simply untrue. Measurements and model outcomes are given with a range of values to allow for the uncertainties in measurement and modeling. Uncertainties in IPCC reports are expressed numerically (90% probability etc.).
"IPCC, for example, discredits satellite-based measurements, perhaps because they are lower). But let all that pass too." If he didn't mean the reader to take this into account, why mention it? This is a rhetorical trick befitting a shaky legal case not a serious academic argument. As I pointed out earlier, satellite measurements are subject to a period of calibration, as is true for any new instrument.
Wine-making in England: this is skimpy evidence at best for unusual warmth. Wine is grown in England on an even bigger scale now, and has been for years. It's also grown in much cooler climates (Germany, Canada: have you heard of Eiswein?). The literature on the medieval warm period is subject to much greater uncertainties than the modern climate record, and that the world as a whole was warmer (as opposed to a few regions) has not been established. It is a bit rich to complain of the IPCC brushing aside uncertainties, then accepting the "medieval warm period" as fact, without any doubts as to the accuracy of measurement.
"... we don't know what the 'normal' production of CO2 is". The natural carbon cycle is very well understood. Try looking for papers by Berner for example.
He correctly points out that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic, then goes on to look for a "dramatically linear relationship". Why would you expect to find a linear relationship if the effect is logarithmic?
The claim that the warming of the troposphere doesn't match models arises from improper handling of uncertainties (where have we heard that before?).
IPCC and sea levels: the IPCC's 2007 numbers are lower than their earlier numbers because they took out the area of greatest uncertainty, ice loss. This is not reassuring. The behaviour of the Antarctic is deviating from models significantly, including much more rapid ice discharge than predicted. If you want to criticise the IPCC for inadequate handling of uncertainty, this is the place.
"... slight cooling in the sea" -- again, a problem with calibrating new instrumentation. See the note at the head of the press release that started it all. Prof Aitkin may be a novice at climate science so one could forgive him the lapse of failing to check for follow-up studies. This error has been known for almost a year. But Bob Carter was advising him. Surely he can't be that incompetent. Or is he dishonest?
Antarctica: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is cause for concern. It is grounded below sea level (up to 2km in parts) and if it destabilized, it could come apart quickly, adding around 5m to sea levels. The problem is that we don't have good models to predict its behaviour. There is evidence of very rapid ice loss in the distant past, but no evidence of the mechanism.
Climate models versus weather prediction. I've seen this argument often and it doesn't improve with age, unlike a good wine (British or not). Climate is a long-term effect, averaged over many years. Weather is an instantaneous measure (what you see now). I can predict with reasonably accuracy, based on decades of medical data, that flu cases will increase over winter. I cannot, however, predict whether any individual will get ill at all, let alone when. Should we stop advising the infirm to take flu shots, because we don't know which of them will succumb? One of the great advances in the twentieth century is the science of large numbers. We can do epidemiological studies, accurate censuses, and the like -- even though there are many errors in the data.
Validity of models -- there are many climate models, not just one. They broadly show the same trend with small differences. If modeling the climate many different ways arrives at a similar outcome, it increases your confidence in the models. If a discrepancy is found, either the discrepant model is invalid, or the others are, and work goes into fixing the problem. This has been happening over a couple of decades. If you think this is not a very good approach, what would you advocate we do instead? Carry on as normal, and see if nothing happens? Is that a responsible position if the best science we can do, whether imperfect or not, says we are heading for trouble?
He claims that the IPCC has extraordinary influence and that its work is political. I argue the opposite. If they had significant influence, we would have a much stronger worldwide agreement than Kyoto by now. On the contrary, the anti-AGW position is largely political (show me the scientific papers: I've found a few, but they are not convincing); I refer you again to the style of Bob Carter. If you think the language of the IPCC Summaries (for policymakers, note, not for scientists -- responsible policymakers will in any case run the detail past their own scientists) is not very scientific, look again at the Carter article I referred you to earlier (not an isolated example).
"... tendency of scholars to 'protect' their theory" -- I suggest he takes a step back and looks at the anti-AGW position in the same light. Lindzen for example persists with his "iris" theory even though he has no hard evidence to back it (and there's a very fundamental reason that it is unlikely to be right -- ask nicely and I'll explain).
"... quasi-religious view" -- again, look at the anti-AGW position. Many of its proponents aren't scientists, or are retired scientists. Their orthodoxy is being challenged, and they are putting up a bitter fight. Similar opinions were expressed about tobacco and cancer, and the ozone hole. What is a scientist who finds that an industrial practice is harmful to do? Shut up and live with the consequences, or speak out and be accused of "religion" or "politics"? Take a step back from the anti-AGW position, and ask yourself what you would do faced with that situation.
Influence of "Greens and environmentalists" -- now he is moving into the political. Is he saying that NASA's labs, the UK Antarctic Survey, et al. are mainly populated by Greens and environmentalists? This is where the science is coming from. I've been in science for over 20 years, and my experience is that scientists are significantly more conservative on average than his end of academia. That there is a Green vote no doubt influences governments to take some kind of action, but you can be sure that as long as that vote is under 10%, that action will be tokenism at best.
"... if there is no true causal link between CO2 and rising temperatures" -- there is. The physics is well established. The only cause for uncertainty is the feedbacks (e.g., extra heating caused by reduced albedo).
"I ask for a public inquiry" -- what purpose would this serve? The detail of the science is beyond the non-scientist, and any scientist can look up the relevant literature. The IPCC is an enquiry of a sort, but he rejects it; would the anti-AGW camp accept any finding they didn't like? His supposition is that the IPCC was set up with the AGW hypothesis set as truth. However, thousands of scientists working on the problem had every opportunity to refute it. Some have pointed out problems, most of which have been addressed, as he would have found had he followed up his limited literature review with a search for citations. There is in fact considerable reward in demonstrating flaws in the science because so few people are doing it -- hence the entry into the field of previous unknowns like Lomborg (would any conventional funding agency have funded him? Only one journal publication, and not in a relevant area ... or now that Aitkin's no longer involved in funding decisions, does he no longer accept track record as a criterion for funding research?) Why are so few people doing it? Is it because the "consensus" is substantially right? Because of a conspiracy?
"... ensure that the funding directed to climate science research be allocated in a disinterested way" -- does he have any evidence that it's not? Again, I point to Lomborg. No track record, no relevant scientific background, yet he was able to attract significant funding. If you want to look for political interference in funding, look no further than his case.
"... started to think through how to find alternatives to oil" -- James Hansen at NASA, often accused of being alarmist, has also pointed this out.
"likely to be attacked and demonised" -- I have seen this claim often but I have yet to see a real instance. Lomborg for instance was attacked largely on the poor quality of his science, which he took personally. The Australian has plenty of articles "attacking and demonising" the IPCC position (how would you classify his?) He may find, however, that some people are annoyed by the fact that he is raking over old arguments that are easy to refute. I was annoyed enough to write this lengthy rebuttal when I have better things to do with my time.
The only part of Aitkin's paper which makes any sense is where he points out that there are other good reasons to aim for a cleaner, greener planet. Well good. Why, then, muddy the waters by pontificating at length on matters on which he is not qualified and which he clearly does not underestand?
As a courtesy to other readers, please provide references (not just a web site or an organisation please: something that can be found) if you have information to add. I do not feel obligated to respond to unsubstantiated claims to the same extent.
Predictive Power of Models
One of the comments on this article claims, "To put it simply, models have got better at being tweaked to match historical climate but no-one has the faintest idea of how good they are at predicting future climate." In other words, the models have no predictive power. I took this as a challenge, and compared one of the earliest papers with reality.
Also since the Antarctic has been the subject of some discussion, I though this picture may be of interest: The picture (sourced from NASA) shows the warming trend around the Antarctic, 1982-2004. As you can see warming around the edges is very significant, but much of the interior is cooling. The overall picture is consistent with the view that the region is warming, but the special properties of the continent with its extremely massive, high ice cap are causing it to deviate from the trend.
I was accused of talking nonsense when I spoke of "consensus". Another area where this term is used in in evolution. As with climate change, effects are long-term and can't be observed directly. If most evidence points to a particular view and there is scant evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable in science to talk about "consensus" emerging. It is simply not true that a scientific theory can only exist if you can directly demonstrate its validity experimentally. Evolution and geology operate on multi-million-year timescales; cosmology on even longer timescales. We can no more recreate the steps leading from simple organic molecules to multicellular beings (at least in some cases) possessing intelligence than we can recreate the steps from the instant of creation of the universe to countless millions of stars as we know them. Nor can we experience climate change directly and change its course by a simple experiment. None of this means that we cannot have valid scientific theories in these areas -- only that testing them is hard, and those who refuse to be persuaded have an easy time developing arguments that seem compelling to the non-scientist.
One of the comments said:
Satellite-based measurements are more accurate - I agree - and the calibration issues have been resolved. Both the University of Alabama (Huntsville) and RSS are now producing very similar temperature data and .. I suppose to your dismay ... it's showing little sign of warming.
It took me a while to get to this and ... why should I be dismayed? If the problem is going away we can all breathe easy. As it turns out, recent corrections show that errors in Christy and Spencer's work significantly underestimated the warming trend.
Here's something I found recently on sea level rise and the potential for a rapid meltdown of ice caps, based on paleoclimate studies:
Jonathan T. Overpeck, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Gifford H. Miller, Daniel R. Muhs, Richard B. Alley, and Jeffrey T. Kiehl. Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise, Science, vol. 311 no. 5768 24 March 2006, p, 1747-1750.
Posted by Philip Machanick at 11:59 pm
I didn't bother to go past your first point, because your claim that, in effect, science operates by consensus is total nonsense. The examples of consensus you cite (the tobacco-cancer link and Newton's laws) were not consensus based at all, but based on extensive data collection, observation and objective analysis, that lead to the logical conclusion that these theories were very highly likely to be correct. That is a scientific conclusion and not a consensus. In contrast, the AGW theory has yet to reach anywhere near the same levels of probability of being correct. Putting figures on it, the probability that the former two theories are correct is > 99.9%. The best the high priests of AGW theory can come up with is about 90% (ie less than 1/100th as certain. Even that is opinion and not objectively demonstrated; despite the massive amounts of research that has gone into attempting to scientifically verify the theory.
In fact, there are plenty of observations that do not fit with or even contradict the AGW theory as it stands; some of which are noted by Aitken. How for example can you explain that the region on earth that is most likely to suffer a greenhouse effect; Antarctica, is not on average warming at all? Even though West Antarctica is, the average is not; ergo, the rest of the continent is actually cooling! Compare this to the most similar climatic region on earth; the Arctic, which is actually heating faster than anywhere else in the world...In scientific terms, these observations are the equivalent of Newton's apple falling up and not down. For Newton's law to survive in the face of such observations, you would need to explain the forces that counteract gravity in the observed case of the apple falling up. In the case of AGW, the same applies; you need to explain contradictions such as these, or else as Popper points out, the AGW theory is in fact false.
Thursday, 10 April 2008 at 02:32:00 GMT+2
Philip Machanick said...
You misunderstood my first point. I did not say science operated by consensus but rather that consensus is the loosely accepted idea that it's a waste of time to rehash areas where agreement is broadly reached.
As for the tobacco vs. climate science situation, the arguments are the same. It was very late in the day that a direct gene-damage link was made to a carcinogen in tobacco. Up to then, the evidence had all be epidemiological, i.e., evidence based on large-scale statistical studies. Climate science is in fact on a firmer base. The models are based on well-understood principles of physics. Statistical methods are needed to handle uncertainties in the measurement. In this respect, the fundamental understanding of what's going on is more advanced than with the tobacco and cancer link. The only major cause for doubt, in both cases (beyond the usual caveats that science can always be invalidated -- but if that concerns you, you should never use a bridge) is vested interests.
It's not true that the Antarctic is not warming at all. The Antarctic peninsula is the fastest-warming region of the planet, even if it's a relatively small part of the Antarctic.
Much of the rest of the continent is experiencing warming but not as yet at a statistically significant level.
The Antarctic's warming response is damped by two effects. The southern hemisphere has much more ocean than the north, and there is a massive quantity of ice, some over 2km above sea level.
All of this fits the mainstream climate models. There is no contradiction.
Measurement of temperature in the Antarctic is especially difficult because of the harsh terrain and difficulties in satellite measurement during Antarctic storms. For this reason, we have a poor record of the overall situation, and making categorical claims as you do only supports my point, that the denial camp looks for certainties yet accuses the other side of failing to allow for uncertainty. See also this article in Nature on why we can't make useful predictions.
The poor state of Antarctic temperature measurement does not prevent us from seeking other direct evidence of warming, for example, rapid break up of ice shelves. Larsen B in 2002; more recently the Wilkins Ice Shelf. There's also an accelerating trend of glacial retreat on the continent.
What a lot of nonsense Phillip.
1 - There is no demonstrable consensus about climate science. The only IPC sonsensus is from government representatives who agree that the report is an accurate summary of climate science, not that the science is correct.
2 - Various Journals and news outlets discredited them selves yeasr ago. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of Science declared that the science was settled when it was obvious back then that it wasn't. The journals and media are very aware of readership and advertising revenue. If readership dropped due to a lack of alarmist stories they wouldn't like it one little bit.
3 - It's not for sceptical scientists to disprove man-made warming. It's up to the believers to prove their case. In the absence of any scientific papers showing irrefutable evidence of man-made warming I believe that everyone should be sceptical.
4 - "the scope and accuracy of the models have improved vastly" .. that's a line we've been hearing or reading for years. To put it simply, models have got better at being tweaked to match historical climate but no-one has the faintest idea of how good they are at predicting future climate.
5 - There's no link between urban heat Island Effects and localised warming in the Arctic. You should know that perfectly well. The UHIE is very likely an issue when attempting to calculate the average global temperature from a series of near-surface measurements. Far too many observation stations now come under the temperature influences of nearby towns and cities.
5 - Satellite-based measurements are more accurate - I agree - and the calibration issues have been resolved. Both the University of Alabama (Huntsville) and RSS are now producing very similar temperature data and .. I suppose to your dismay ... it's showing little sign of warming.
6 - "Measurements and model outcomes are given with a range of values to allow for the uncertainties in measurement and modeling." That's rubbish and you (should) know it. I recently read an alarmist and widely cited 2007 paper from James Hansen and he mentioned 3/4 degree + or - 1/4 at point but later forgot all about it and made all kind of asuumptions of accuracy on just the 3/4. No error margins for him because people would see that the range of values was 2/3 of 1 degree, and that's very high for temperature data.
7 - "Uncertainties in IPCC reports are expressed numerically (90% probability etc.)" ... more nonsense. Scientific claims are expressed with (highly subjective) ratings of uncertainty. Newton wasn't 93.5% about gravity, ws he?
8 - The literature about the Medieval Warm period is well established and is supported by numerous temperature proxies. (Not proxies based on trees because temperature is not the only factor in their growth.)
9 - Th anatural cycle of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. Absorption has recently increased (i.e. less remaining in the atmosphere) because of the La Nina. The movement (extent and drivers) of oceaninc absorption are poorly understood and little is known about how much settles on the ocean floor. Read the literatue and you'll find CO2 in teh atmosphere known to 3 decimal places but oceanic precipitation estimated in millions of tonnes.
10 - The latest IPCC sea level figures are based on a technique of estimating historical levels from a statistical calibration of recent monitored sea levels with the prevailing weather conditions and seasons. This ignores issues such as geological movement (uplift, fall) and is probably very dicey when it comes to the interplay of seasons, winds and ENSO events. Why am I slightly uncertain? Because the method has been poorly disclosed, especially the vital matter of accuracy.
11 - The seas have in fact cooled. For sea surface temperatures take a look at the NOAA maps and data. For the temperatures down deeper try the recent paper about that, you know the one, it's where the author tried to find all the possible excuses for the data being cooler than he wanted/expected.
I'm runnign out of time now so I'll huryy.
- Of course the IPCC is political. It's not much more than a government-funded lobby group that greatly influences government spending on climate-related matters. It has always attarcted those scientists who believe in man-made warming and it's charter directs it to assess the risks of a human-influence on climate. Why on earth would anyone claim it's impartial?
- The partial collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf shows no sign of being anything other than natural. The press statement from NSIDC/BAS was just a beat up ... for funding(?), exposure(?) or political purposes(?). The fissure started to develop between March 2007 and July 2007, during the late autumn and early winter when temperatures were low. Winter temperatures in that part of the world have jumped around all over the place and cloud cover since 1998 has shifted away from low cloud and toward mid-level cloud, so I can't see any human influence in that.
The tobacco story is a good example. Long prior to establishment of causal means, as you note, we still had very strong epidemiological evidence which said there was a very high probability (>99%) of a link between tobacco and cancer. That is an objective measurement. We do NOT have that for climate change; if we did, then for example, average global temperatures would be tracking rises in GHG levels far more closely than they are. They are not, so we have to rely on a consensus view.
You also sink your own argument with respect to Antarctica and end up supporting the thrust of mine. Firstly you note that western Antarctica is warming faster than any other area of the planet, and then say that the rest of Antarctica is not warming because it is covered in ice and surrounded by a huge area of sea. Last time I looked, that was also so for West Antarctica, so you have the paradox here ultimately revealed. Either West Antarctica defies your explanation, or the rest of Antarctica does. Which ever is correct, you must conclude that one of the two defies predictions made according to the AGW theory.
I also note that you blame "vested interests" for the doubts about climate change. That is a very stereotypical response, a very poor excuse for rational argument and no excuse whatsoever for ignoring the points raised; as is also usual for the greenhouse religion. What is Aitken's "vested interest"? I'll tell you what mine is by the way; if AGW theories turn out to be right, then I will make a small mint; or perhaps more like a large mint. If you need it spelled out any more clearly, by adopting my current position, I am actually arguing against my vested interest. Can you please explain how that stands up with your theory?
Chris Fellows said...
Greetings Paul,
I love the web! Thanks for putting up the link to your blog. I am very strongly of the opinion that anthropogenic global warming is real, but that the probability of a catastrophic 'tipping point' are vanishingly small and that the costs of adapting to the effects of global warming are much less than the costs of futile attempts to stop it.
I am a card-carrying scientist...
Please, climate skeptics, drop by and read this on why we think anthropogenic global warming is true; true believers, drop by and read the lot. Please.
I'm not sure if we are arguing here whether consensus is important or not but in any case, show me the literature that refutes the "mainstream". There's a very small group of scientists plugging away at this and they are not convincing compared with the overwhelming majority. That's not a vote, it's weighing the evidence.
Now a reputable journal like Science only sells because it's alarmist. Please stick to plausible points otherwise you don't win anyone over.
UHI and Arctic: the point is that if the temperature trend was solely an artifact of UHI, we wouldn't be seeing the strong heating trend we do get in the Arctic.
Antarctic: either you want to base everything on absolute certainty, or you don't. Temperature measurement in the Antarctic is hard and records are patchy. That's a fact.
University of Alabama (Huntsville): could this be what you are referring to? I must say this is a bit of a puzzle. Christy claims that the standard models predict greater warming in the tropics which is exactly the opposite to what I've seen everywhere else.
The misconception some of you are coming from is that I want the AGW theory to be correct. Nothing would please me more than to discover it wasn't because experience tells me that if we really need global action to turn it around, there's little chance it will happen in time.
What does not help the case is vituperative bile such as we see from some in the anti-AGW side, and snidely dismissing science which looks reasonable and valid. I haven't read the specific Hansen paper cited here, but he has been the subject of beat-ups before (e.g., his early models showed a range of scenarios and some in the anti-AGW camp have conveniently only taken his worst case which he himself said was unlikely, and used this to claim he was out by a factor of 3).
If you guys want to claim the other side is duplicitous, you are hardly making a case by using tactics like this. Further, I try to give references for my claims so they can be checked. NOAA has masses of data (thanks for the pointer but something specific would have been helpful) but I'll try to track down their numbers.
Chris Fellows: thanks for dropping by. I'm happy to read your views as well as all the other stuff I've plowed through.
Your thickness amazes me.
Just how difficult do you think it is to publish papers sceptical of man-made warming? What? You think the peer-review system is credible and above broad? Soeems like you have a lot to learn.
A journal like Science sees the editor rejecting papers that he doesn't like or sending them to reviewers that he knows will trash them. What? You still believe that the publication of scientific papers is a fair and impartial business? Where have you been?
You are the first person I've read who has tried to claim that anyone thinks the ONLY reason that temperatures have risen is because of UHI. All my learned colleagues - try finding some - will tell you that over the last 50 years temperatures have risen for (very probably) natural reasons and they have fallen for natural reasons. They will also say that there is very likely some underlying distortion brought about by the UHI effects on near-ground temperatures.
I was referring to observed temperatures at the Rothera and San Martin bases in the Antarctic. Read that sentence again - I said "observed". Yes, generalising across Antractica is difficult but it's more than that - it's foolish to claim that you know what land based temperatures are when there's no observations there.
I was referring to UAH data of lower tropospheric temperatures. Apparently you are unaware that these figures are published every month.
"The misconception some of you are coming from is that I want the AGW theory to be correct. Nothing would please me more than to discover it wasn't because experience tells me that if we really need global action to turn it around, there's little chance it will happen in time." Put the viloin away. Your raison d'etre would disappear if you didn't have man-made warming to carry on about.
You didn't respond to my other points so I'll take it that you agree with them.
What vituperative bile? We've put up with ad hominem attacks and gross unsubstantiated assertions from the warm-aholics for years. It looks like you're being rather precious. My heart bleeds ... from laughter.
In response to "What vituperative bile?" may I quote your words to you: "Your thickness amazes me."
I am offering you the opportunity to post your views here without censorship. If you feel you are making a case by being rude, I am not going to argue.
On UAH data of lower tropospheric temperatures: I have read this report, which claims to have fixed significant though not all discrepancies. Christy's comment only refers to temperatures, not the atmosphere, which threw me off track. Surface temperature trends in models generally do increase less in the tropics. Thanks for the correction.
See my next article for a more detailed response on some points raised here.
UHI: it is you who is claiming there is no significant temperature trend outside of natural variability. If you isolate out rural stations including the Arctic, this is one of many techniques for eliminating UHI bias. Following from your logic, if you haven't answered my other points on how UHI bias can be eliminated, can I take it you agree that the problem can be satisfactorily handled?
It's hard justify to responding to every point by someone who does not post their name (I don't know which of the anonymous posts are the same person for example) or provide references. But feel free to continue to post here. I'll try to get to your other points as time allows.
models have got better at being tweaked to match historical climate but no-one has the faintest idea of how good they are at predicting future climate.
This is a common misconception of denialists. Models are not in any way "tweaked to match historical climate." The only climate data that goes into the models is grid data -- the albedo, elevation, terrain type and average cloud cover of each grid point. The rest is physics, and the improvements have all been in how to model physical effects. For instance, the first radiative-convective model of Earth's atmosphere (Manabe and Strickler 1964) used a fixed vertical distribution of absolute humidity to allocate water vapor, while a later one (Manabe and Wetherall 1967) used a fixed distribution of relative humidity, which matched empirical data better.
Anonymous repeats:
[[Th anatural [sic] cycle of carbon dioxide is poorly understood.]]
No matter how many times you repeat this, it still won't be true. The carbon cycle is very well understood, thanks to the efforts of such scientists as James C.G. Walker, James Kasting, Hays, Berner, Lasaga, and many others. Your ignorance of the field doesn't mean the field doesn't exist.
Anonymous posts:
[[What vituperative bile?]]
You have to be kidding.
You keep saying consensus is meaningless and so is peer review, because scientists are prejudiced and as suppressing research which disagrees with them. Leaving aside your gross ignorance about how modern science operates -- e.g. the fact that it operates by consensus and peer review -- your ad hominem remarks about how scientists deliberately distort the truth and suppress opposing research are nothing if not personal attacks. Who do you think you're kidding?
brad said...
I find this debate very interesting, but somewhat dysfunctional.
I am most interested in the points raised by climate skeptics but it seems to me that no one here is making any concessions, so the debate isn't moving forward. i.e. can we identify which points raised by skeptics like "anonymous" do actually contribute to uncertainty about AGW and which points do not contribute to uncertainty because they have been rigorously addressed? Can skeptics then agree that some of the points raised have been sufficiently dealt with so that we can concentrate on the ones that are really still important?
I guess that we are mostly scientists here, so it strikes me that the debate is so unscientific! Why the impoliteness, what benefit is there to claim that people/ideas are nonsense, idiots, kidding etc.?
If everyone would cite specific references that would help us readers a lot too!
Thanks, and keep up the good discussion.
Friday, 11 April 2008 at 02:02:00 GMT+2
Thanks, Brad.
The denial case would be more strongly made without personal attacks and the harping on evidence that's easily refuted like wine production in England. Of course some of these people have run into personal flak as well, but I didn't do that, so I do not accept that I should be a target of rudeness. To me that comes across as not having a case.
I recognize that there are some genuine scientists out there with genuine concerns, but I don't expect any of them to post personal attacks. I would be happy if they would provide links to research that clarifies the picture. Robust debate is fine. I have no problem with that.
I accept that there are big problems with modeling something as complex as the climate. What I am not seeing from the denial side is what their alternative is. As far as I can tell, it's sit back and see what happens.
Some may consider "denial" some sort of insult, but as long as the case being put is that the only possible flaw in the modeling is that it's pessimistic, I can't think of a better term. If there are indeed significant flaws in the models, as we should acknowledge, what about the possibility that the error is on the optimistic side? Someone examining both sides of the potential errors would in my book be a skeptic.
Would have responded directly to Barton Paul Levenson, but couldn't find an email.. sorry to clutter up your comments! Just wanted to point out that the carbon cycle is not cut and dried, there are serious problems with some of (most of?) the modelling of transport of gases across the air/water interface. In 2006 I went to a talk by a physical chemist who talked about how mass and heat transport are coupled: you can't calculate the flux of carbon dioxide from water to atmosphere and vice versa just by looking at the concentrations, you need to know the relative temperatures too. I worked out his equations in Excel, and a gas will move against a pressure gradient if it is moving with a temperature gradient: i.e., if the air is hotter than the water, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the water will be higher than in the air.
This physical chemist wrote two papers on this in 1991-1992 in the climate scientists' journal of record, Geophysical Research Letters (Phillips, Leon F.. Carbon dioxide transport at the air-sea interface: Effect of coupling of heat and matter fluxes. Geophysical Research Letters (1991), 18(7), 1221-4.; Phillips, L. F.. Carbon dioxide transport at the air-sea interface: numerical calculations for a surface renewal model with coupled fluxes. Geophysical Research Letters (1992), 19(16), 1667-70.) As of last year the papers have each been cited exactly four (4!) times. I found a paper from 2003 by a collection of climate scientist chaps from Princeton and other places, who estimated carbon uptake in various places and come to the conclusion: 'there is more carbon dioxide uptake at low latitudes, and less at high latitudes, than the models predict.' This is because the physics in those models is wrong.
Thanks, Chris. That's good information. There's also the question of how the ocean's rather complex chemistry which includes a thing called "life" will respond to a less alkaline environment. A lot of unknowns -- but I would still argue that the big picture is well enough understood to estimate in roughly the right ballpark. What we want to know is whether we are heading for climate change rapid enough to be harmful.
There have been papers recently suggesting that natural sequestration is slower than predicted. Possibly your issues are part of the cause. As with other uncertainties in the modeling, my concern is that reality could be worse than any of the models.
Saturday, 12 April 2008 at 06:45:00 GMT+2
why is it that web comments on any article related to climate change, no matter how specific the origional article, end up as tit for tat "it's true" or "it's not true".
Thanks Phillip for your rebuttal of the Australian's article by Don Aitkin. It made me so angry that such conjecture and pure nonsense could be published by an acaedamic of high standing. Since when were political "scientists" called upon to review the work of climate scientists. I certainly didn't see the Australian publishing articles by Jim Hansen about the demise of the Liberal party. It is perfectly within Aitkin's ambit to discuss political and policy reaction to climate change but for him to question the basic science is ludicrous.
Sunday, 13 April 2008 at 12:39:00 GMT+2
Thanks, Peter. Don Aitkin is by no means the only person of his standing to have done something like this. It is becoming quite fashionable. I only wish we could get a history professor to write something on gravitation waves, to vary the fare. But I don't blame him: he is entitled to his opinion and as long as he is willing to debate it intelligently, there is no big problem. I do have some difficulty with The Australian giving the article undue prominence because he wasn't really saying anything new, and he lacks the background to repeat claims of others with increased authority. That said, some of the responses posted here illustrate the deeper problem: that there are some not really open to reason, who are somehow getting editorial space (even if they can't publish significant research for whatever reason).
Tuesday, 15 April 2008 at 13:28:00 GMT+2
"Validity of models -- there are many climate models, not just one. They broadly show the same trend with small differences. If modeling the climate many different ways arrives at a similar outcome, it increases your confidence in the models."
But how much actual difference in the underlying assumptions in the models? If they have the same assumptions, then, yes, the trends will be similar. CO2 forcing alone accounts for only a portion of warming trend, and rest is water vapor and cloud feedback. If the models have similar assumptions wrt water vapor feedback, then the model accuracy rests on the accuracy of such assumptions.
The number of models is irrelevent to assessing their validity. It's all about the data matching the models that validates or invalidates them.
. and you have folks claiming the data falsifies estimates -
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/all-comments/#comments
- for the simple reason that natural climate variability factors have turned recent temperature trends down (last 8 years).
anon says: "AGW theory has yet to reach anywhere near the same levels of probability of being correct."
IMHO, its talking about the key nub of skepticism, but that's not a well-formed way of stating it. AGW theory is partly physics (well-founded) and partly climate modelling assumptions (some wellfounded some speculative).
ONE CAN TRUST ASPECTS OF THE AGW THEORY WITHOUT TRUSTING THE MODELS. We shouldnt trust models without good validation mechanisms, even if we think AGW theory is right. One way is to cross-check side-result of historical trends with models. There have been reported errors & contradictions in some cases (cloud cover differences, precipitation estimates off, etc).
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Spencer on cloud cover feedback
If you want to test the models, see my next article.
You can't separate out a trend of 2 or 3C per century in 8 years. If you look at the earliest instrument record of annual temperature variation (before industrial pollution was worldwide) e.g. HadCRUT3, you will see that there is a variation of about 0.5C without a statistically significant trend (I looked at HadCRUT3 for the first 50 years). If you take this as "natural variability" a trend of 0.03C per year can hardly be expected to be discernible over 8 years. It won't break out of natural variability; try a period of 15 years + or just test the "trend" that's exciting you for statistical significance.
Cloud feedback: here's a thought experiment for you. The earth's orbit changes, inducing an increase of 4W/m^2 in net energy flux. Would you expect the cloud feedback effect to damp this increase? Yes? Then how did warming well above the current trend occur in the inter-glacials? No? Then why is this source of 4W/m^2 different from the same increase in net energy resulting from AGW?
I found the discussion at this site fascinating. The "skeptics" argued themselves hoarse that proxy data couldn't be accurate, forgetting that they are the ones with a case to make that the Medieval warm period can be accurately compared with today. If you dismiss all the evidence as inaccurate, the best you can do is say we can't learn from the past, not that your preferred version of the past is correct. Hint: if you are really a skeptic, you question all sides of the debate, not just the one that you dislike.
Why doesn't it get hotter every year?
The Mysterious Vanishing Ice Age
Zimbabwe and China: A Toxic Legacy
Rob Robertson: A Tribute
Climate Science Predictive Power
Who's putting the "political" in climate science, ...


FinancialForce, a cloud ERP vendor built on Salesforce's platform, is rolling out new analytics products based on Einstein and applying next-generation Lightning UX features across its portfolio. The company detailed the new features as part of its Fall 2018 release during Salesforce's Dreamforce event being held in San Francisco this week.
The updates to Professional Service Automation (PSA) will bring improved visibility and analysis against Billings, Backlog, Capacity and Utilization using the Einstein Analytics tool combined with key services data. The forecasting elements are also improved through the general availability of PSA Analytics.
The company is also rolling out agile billing via an updated Subscription and Usage Billing service. The update will let businesses manage subscription services, consumption- and usage- based offerings, and billing for tangible goods via one system.
Meanwhile, updates to the Financial Management service will offer enhanced, role-based dashboards and financial reporting also powered by Salesforce Einstein, with the aim of providing scalability to "tens of million of rows across detailed accounting transactions," the company said.
On the UX side, the new release brings full Salesforce Lightning-readiness with a new user-friendly UX across the FinancialForce applications portfolio. This will allow users to customize the UX and implement many managed and unmanaged Lightning apps, productivity tools such as Utility Bar, integration with Outlook or Gmail and Lightning actions, as well as build Lightning Communities.
It's challenging to get data scientists where you need them. And if you're managing an AI project, better be prepared for handling moving targets. These are some of the results of a survey of chief data scientists and analytics officers that we recently concluded.
Thought leader Esteban Kolsky takes on the big question: What will data platforms look like now that big data's hype is over and big data "solutions" are at hand?


The first in a planned series of live recordings on Last Chance Records from our favorite bar in the world, White Water Tavern in Little Rock, AR. This record surprised even those of us who are long time fans of Austin. What came together in 5 days turned out to be an intimate, emotional and lyrically charged album. Recorded, mixed and mastered for digital by Little Rock based engineer Jon Parker and seperately mastered for analog vinyl by Prairie Cat.