Tuka feedback loop zip

Tailor Edition Software for mass customization Instead of changing the patterns point by point you can open your measurement chart and change the values quickly, saving you time. Most Popular. Nidhi Dutt Orient Craft. Jeff Chung President, Point Conception. Adrianna Papell. You May Also Like…. Click to learn more Take a self-paced online training course to get started or enhance your skills. Streaming and Download help. Report this album or account. Bandcamp Album of the Day Jan 11, Time and Temp by Unagi.

Inspired by afro-futurist cartoons, this collaborative project from rapper Jordan Dennis and producer JUJO is a bonafide hip-hop saga.

Cheaper Than Therapy by Kid Bookie. The latest from UK artist Kid Bookie is impossible to pin down, offering taut grime beats one minute and cutting alt-rock grooves the next. Inner Thoughts by Mfasis.

NY rapper Mfasis goes deep on his latest album, culling rhymes from his own internal struggles and his observations of the world. Bandcamp Daily your guide to the world of Bandcamp. No matching results. I'm sure I don't know, but I expect it to breed problems of some sort.

Like forecasting catastrophe when in fact they don't know shit. Like you. You have described a bunch of possible noise-level disruptions that we humans will adapt to in a flash. All right folks, move along. Nothing to see here. We're in the middle of one of the largest mass extinction events in the history of the Earth.

Why do you hate all life? A catastrophe, I tell you! I think at this point we can expect scoffing regardless of whatever destruction would be cited. What's a few thousand miles of coastline matter? Who cares about the invasive species and tropical diseases migrating toward the poles? Glacier retreat, didn't really need that water anyways. Coral reefs all gone, we can see what they used to look like on TV. You have been living in disaster for millenia. That seemed a little bit mean didn't it.

Somebody's mom didn't love them? I'd be glad to take this up with you, brainiac. And yet neither he nor you offer evidence, nor explain where the crappy part comes in. Do you have anything other than not liking the conclusions? Of course. Have you not been following? Do you not understand the true import of Climategate?

Virtually every paper and model rely on it as a primary source. CRU could have silenced their critics by posting the basis of that temperature data in a form that independent agencies could in a straightforward fashion duplicate their results. They did not make that data available, because they couldn't. The UK Met Office states it will take three years to reconstruct, and that was their preliminary estimate 4 months ago.

I have seen nothing since that indicates that will be any quicker. Nor even that they are sure it will be possible. Don't talk to me about satellite data -- that only covers the previous 32 years. And their data has been shown to be extremely suspect due to UHI and station siting concerns. On top of that, the positive feedback that the IPCC report postulates has not been borne out by the evidence. Despite the twisting and turning of the "climate scientists", and I use the quotes advisedly, they have not been able to explain the lack of a mid-tropospheric hotspot.

Nor the flat ocean heat content. No, no one knows just where we are in "climate science". Only true- believer dupes believe "the science is settled". You disgust me. Why don't you go play in the freeway? It's far from certain that you will get run over. It was to the people who lived there. It will be for the people whose cities are destroyed in the future. You are aware that that phrase is typically used when there is, in fact, something to see, but certain powers want it ignored.

How do you know? Isn't this evolution in action? And who said you would be increasing the rate? Has anyone studied whether species which might otherwise have gone extinct are prolonged because of warmer temps? Not the same thing at all. You talk like you know the effects. And you lie if you say you do. News flash for Mark -- villages have been disappearing and appearing for millennia.

What makes you think this is any different? The weeping tone of the journalist as they recounted it? I see. More of your scintillating, compelling, straw man arguments. Uh, no, they even have the warmest year different because they use different data sets.

I've referred you denialists to the reality of this numerous times. I wonder why they were recalcitrant and did not send blanket data. You're out of place here. The evidence that AGW deniers have actually used the evidence that has been gathered to develop a testable hypothesis.

OK, I'll try again. What specific evidence would you accept as falsifying your hypothesis? If you don't have a hypothesis to test, you're pretty much out of luck.

Why don't you explain your hypothesis and the support for it, and I'll see. So far you've shown us nothing but empty claims. I think all this has been covered with you many times already hasn't it Ward? Eventually you run away. Do you imagine it would be any different with these folks? Evidence that carbon dioxide does not affect the temperature of the atmosphere as it increases its share.

We already know that there is an increase in carbon dioxide. It has been measured. Physics shows that it absorbs certain infrared. Show me that these facts do not affect the climate. The proponents have developed it and shown how their model fits the evidence. The self-described sceptics offer nothing. You are right, the self-described sceptics are out of luck until they bother to develop a hypothesis. Why would I believe you? You already misrepresent what scientists have done.

No, they were sent one to begin with. And they didn't respond. And they didn't respond again when one more was sent. It wasn't until they had not responded for years that a bunch were sent. Sorry to confuse you with the facts. And they violated the law. They were fortunate the law only had a 6 month statute of limitations which fault is being corrected, by the way but they broke it.

And when it came down to responding again to more recent requests, they said "Oh fancy that. We don't know what we did with the data. Heavens me! Not even knowing what public and private is, much less what happened. OK, it goes like this. The effect of CO2 is known to be logarithmic, in that each time it doubles, the temperature changes by a constant amount, called the climate sensitivity to CO2.

That value is generally agreed to be less than 1. Rob Deckker, one of the proponents in this group, has stipulated that, I believe. There have been several papers showing lower values, but we don't even need them. The positive water vapor feedback assumed by the climate models has been shown to be absent by three independent approaches. The outgoing radiation measured by the ERBE satellite doesn't show it, the upper troposphere dries as the surface temperature increases, and the "hot spot" that should appear near the tropopause is not there.

There is no support for the water feedback assumption. So, assuming the upper value of 1. That makes the CO2 induced temperature increase less than 0. Do you think that's a problem? If so, how? In order to counter that, you need to show where the WV feedback has been measured to be positive, or show that the climate sensitivity value is greater than 1. Skeptics don't have to do anything but point out errors in the proponents hypothesis.

You have to come up with one that can be defended. So far you haven't even proposed anything specific. Can't you even explain the hypothesis that you believe so strongly? How do you expect to convince anyone you're serious?

It sounds like you've whipped yourself up into some sort of religious fervor. And so Ward does admit CO2 affects the temperature of the atmosphere. No facts disputed there apparently, though he was too stupid to be able to spell Dekker's name correctly. CO2 does affect global climate. Ward will try to tell us it doesn't matter. Now it goes off into the weeds. Notice that he doesn't cite the "three independent approaches", and several bizarre pet theories are introduced all in one paragraph.

Yeah, a person could assume that. But climate scientists don't assume it. That's because the evidence doesn't support the assumption. Already we are seeing significant effects from the warming that has occurred. And while it may sound modest taken as a global average, in many places such as the Arctic the warming anomaly is as much as 10C. That's why the polar ice cap is disappearing. There is much literature showing this already so no need to look very hard. Radiation, humidity, and temperature profile are wrong for WV feedback.

They're not my theories, they're derived from physics. I forgot unum might read this, or I'd have typed slower. And here I thought we were still coming out of a glaciation. Any evidence linking the ice melting to CO2? That's quite a strategy.

Hard to argue with. I have seen a lot of disinformation. I can see the program but finding some referred name is problematic my names are not structured that way. I know that fortran can handle regular pathnames. I see you are changing the subject now that you have been proven to be full of shit. What a bunch of hooey. You know nothing. It's a theory, Bill. That means an explanation accepted in science. How do we know it's accepted? Why is AGW accepted? Because of the overwhelming evidence and lack of data disproving it.

Once we have a theory, it's incumbent upon the challengers to provide evidence if they wish to disprove it. Every time some crackpot challenges the theory of evolution, or gravity, or atomic theory, you don't demand the scientists provide the evidence -- you demand the challenger do so for his position.

Are conspiring to hide it? What is your explanation for the overwhelming support for AGW in science? Be specific and feel free to be paranoid. Because nothing was taken. The FOIA. Why do you suppose they initially named it FOIA? It's like making a copy of the rare book, not stealing it. After looking at the software, as a programmer, what would you estimate it's worth? Do you think anyone's going to buy it? See the models involved instead, and the data behind them.

If there were, that would be global cooling to Past estmated figures are already known to no longer be correct, future estimates having gone obsolete since year CO2 production has increased faster than expected. Since Obama was elected in the USA, CO2 production has increased faster than expected because the world's economies are improving.

For example, Report Four from the IPCC among others was known to be incorrect about future increases in human-produced carbon dioxide within a few months of the report being published. The IPCC's estimates were too conservative: the question was not if the estimates were too low, but by how much. NOAA's latest data March 10, shows we have already exceeded year estimates. Increased CO2 means chemically modified methane, ozone, and water vapor. There is no such thing as "0.

Get a textbook with a title like "Introduction to Ecology" and read it. After that, you may speak on the subject without making it obvious that you know nothing about it. Yes, rapid extinction rates are a bad thing. No, disrupting the globe will not make it better.