One Dollar Dirties 1/17

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online One Dollar Dirties 1/17 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with One Dollar Dirties 1/17 book. Happy reading One Dollar Dirties 1/17 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF One Dollar Dirties 1/17 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF One Dollar Dirties 1/17 Pocket Guide.

Tech culture. News videos. Explainer videos. Sport videos. Money transfers. Health insurance. Money Deals. The Independent Books. Voucher Codes. Minds Articles. Subscription offers. Subscription sign in. Read latest edition. UK Edition. US Edition. Log in using your social network account. Please enter a valid password. Keep me logged in. Try Independent Minds free for 1 month See the options. The City of London had an average emission of You can form your own view.

Subscribe now. Shape Created with Sketch. Climate change around the world - in pictures Show all Calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers are seen floating on the water in Qaqortoq, Greenland. Flood damaged streets in Queens, New York where the historic boardwalk was washed away due to Hurricane Sandy in Widespread drought devastated a corn crop on a farm near Bruceville, Indiana in The report forecasts that climate change will reduce median yields by up to 2 per cent per decade for the rest of the century.

The report warns a global mean temperature increase of 2. A child suffering from malnutrition and diarrhoea is seen at the Banadir hospital in the Somalian capital of Mogadishu in Climate change will lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, with examples including an increased likelihood of under-nutrition.

The report states that climate change over the 21st century will have a significant impact on forms of migration that compromise human security. A villager walks through a parched paddy in Tianlin county, China in A boat navigates among calved icebergs from the nearby Twin Glaciers in Qaqortoq, Greenland. Boats are a crucial mode of transportation in the country that has few roads. As cities like Miami, New York and other vulnerable spots around the world strategize about how to respond to climate change, many Greenlanders simply do what theyve always done: adapt. If all the glaciers melt, well just get more land.

The 'doomsday' seed vault built to protect millions of food crops from climate change, wars and natural disasters opened deep within an Arctic mountain in the remote Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard. A technician preparing to drain a vast underground lake at the Tete Rousse glacier on the Mont Blanc Alpine mountain, to avert a potentially disatrous flood. Some 65, cubic metres 2. Oroumieh, one of the biggest saltwater lakes on Earth, has shrunk more than 80 percent to 1, square kilometers in the past decade.

Wasnt sure wot 2 xpect but overall its bn pretty gd. Much prefer a have a chance gettin laid than watchin other peeps screwin. Yes, it is real! Make sure there's enough members in your area and happy hunting! Will I be able to meet a mature woman of integrity, and looking to meet someone of substance. Cancel it on your CC end. Just stop payment to them and explain to your CC company that you subscribed to a service but they make it impossible to cancel so you are stopping payment.

15-Jul-1909 › Page 11

Has worked for me on dating sites. Hey Terry. HH is a casual dating kind of site. Similar to AFF concept, but not as fake as they are. HookUpHangOut reviews. Write a Review Ask a Question Share. Yes 1. Yes 3. Yes 2. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes 6. Yes 8. Yes 9. Yes Dear member, Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your feedback.

I can assure you that the only time employees post on review sites is when we receive an alert that there's been a dissatisfied customer, such as in this case. Fortunately this is rare for us but when it does happen we do our best to solve any issues. We hope you will try again and this time adjust your search preferences accordingly to remove anyone living a certain distance away.

Thanks again for your feedback. Regards, the Hookup Hangout Team. Dear customer, First of all, thanks for leaving feedback — it's greatly appreciated as it allows us to identify areas where we can improve our members' experience even more. We treat such activity, which as you say is easy to spot but nevertheless frustrating, very seriously indeed. Unfortunately, it can happen on any internet dating site or social network but the key is to identify and report such activity immediately to enable us to carry out a full investigation, with profile deletions and IP blocks applied where necessary.

Rest assured that we already invest in the latest technology, as well as manual profile checking, to identify non-genuine members. We go further than most to prevent scammers from signing up, as this activity does nothing but annoy our valued customers. We do, however, ask for your co-operation if you're ever approached in a suspicious manner. Our combined efforts are the best way to eliminate the few non-genuine users that evade the security checks that we carry out routinely on our database of millions.

We hope you will keep this in mind in the future and sincerely regret that you were unable to enjoy the many advantages of being a member on our site due to the action of an external person. We hope you will try again and thank you once more for your feedback! The Hookup Hangout Team. Helpful answer 0 Votes Thanks for voting! Not as helpful. Is the service real? See all answers 3. I'm trying to delete my subscription but it is forcing me to print sign and fax forms and I am unable to do that can someone help.

See all answers 1. I want to cancel my subscription but i am not able to print and fax the form is there something else i can do. Hoe do I sign up? I suggest your 30year trend is even at least slightly warmer than reality, but probably the best we can do. The work would be even better with funding to twin random stations worldwide with the newest temperature instruments available, running them side by side to see what we get. The next thing is to bring the work up to and compare it with the satellite record and CRN.

I believe we are going to get wonderful coroboration with the satellite records. On a rational note it looks more and more like El Nino brought in a step change as nothing was really going on up to that point and not much since. Go figure. All it would take is a change in the location of a large pool of warm ocean water that persists. The heated water that evaporates is carried downwind where the water vapor cools, part of liberating all of that energy heat warms everything else up, including surface stations. How many billions of gallons of warm water from vapor is this El Nino transporting on to the continent to cool, How much energy does all that take?

There are no compliant networks with which to make the comparison. CRN is the only one and that network has only been online during trendless times. So our current results split the uprights — on the safe side. Not only is Klotzbach et al. The plot above gives a 0. That is global data, including over oceans. Hate to be the spoiler here, but…. As I have said many times before, here and elsewhere, this whole AGW thing is not about science, it is about money, and that makes it a fraud issue.

You can pump out all the data you like, and personally, I believe it. But it was clear from the beginning there was no AGW. This study will just go in the trash, like all the others. Science is now corrupt, and the crooks are running the show. For every meaningful chart you show, they will come back with a mountain of hogwash. If you really want to fight this corrupt influence on science, you have to go to the heart of it.

Scientists committing fraud by lying to attract funds for their personal gain. That is a crime. It is white-collar crime.

Header Right

Turning a blind eye to this crime, will only make things worse as the years go on. If you do, your damn fools! When are you people are going to face facts? Its not about the science, its about money, always has been, always will be. Until we are prepared to treat white-collar criminals like we do with blue-collar criminals, nothing is going to change. Do all the studies you like. That is, the problem of white-collar crime! Right behind you Dorian!!! Somebody just wake you up, Brian H?

Tourettes syndrome? Do you make these cryptic non sequiturs often? Dorian, calm. Smiths committee. Smith said he was working from NOAA whistle blower information. It does not happen overnight when you are fighting a 25 year world war with gov funding, MSM, and leftist sentiments on the other side. But it can and does happen, one skirmisch, one battle, at a time. Soldier on. Matching uniforms polished to gleaming… swords reflecting torchlight across the meadow in the pre-dawn light….

This is exactly the kind of activity needed to corral activist, ideologue science. Bad stuff gets done in the dark. The real deal. On the other hand, we are making extraordinary claims. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I would like to add, most emphatically, an in no uncertain terms: This is no fraud. This is not scam. NOAA has not lied. This is an error. It is an error we ourselves partially made in Fall et al. I never quite did get around to running our unperturbed subset using Leroy ratings.

But someday, maybe someday soon, I will. Maybe the findings will change as a direct result of addressing the criticisms of the pre-release. And if those results turn out to be compatible with what we have found using Leroy , I am going to have one heck of a scientific horse-laugh. Our critics all seem to be enamoured of the quaint notion that the pre-release was for publicity purposes loved it!

Criticisms we had to address. So if we made all those errors, how can we call fraud on NOAA if they make the exact same sorts of errors? Confirmation bias? Human nature is. Seeing as how scientists, or even ones playing one on TV like me , are at least part human.

I am not inclined to judge. I find it just gets in the way.

  • The Numbers - Movies Released in ?
  • Changes.
  • Você, líder do seu sucesso! (Filosofia de vida e autoajuda Livro 1) (Portuguese Edition);
  • How to Prepare for a Long Plane Ride (with Checklist) - wikiHow.
  • Como Crear Una Empresa Para Empezar A Vender Tus Productos En Internet (Spanish Edition).
  • HookUpHangOut Headquarters;

So let us put out past differences aside, get our heads together and make a little science, already. So how do I do that if I am not on speaking terms with him? I want to get my hands and head into this stuff. A beautiful call for civility: Treat opponents with respect and give them room to correct their errors. Make room for honest, mutually respectful disagreement. Give sympathetic people in NOAA cover to engage in dialog with skeptics. This shows how science is done. Perhaps three thousand hours in.

Maybe more. Having deconstructed the mechanisms, it is my honest opinion that this is error compounded by confirmation bias and not fraud, scam, or any other synonym thereof. We made much the same sort of mistakes ourselves, at the outset. Maybe we are making other mistakes, quien sabe? If so, they are honest errors. As for my sanity, it has been called into question so many times, I have developed an immunity … but the above is my call from the trenches.

My guess is he wants to give the benefit of the doubt so that he can possibility divide and conquer. By taking his approach he allows those at the authority level to self separate. If he comes in firing 6 guns, he makes it much harder for that to occur. It will be incumbent on me to defend this paper in hostile territory. And it is in hostile territory that I acquired the invaluable feedback that allowed for the corrections since That is valuable to me. I need the other side. So do we all, though some of us may not yet realize it.

Besides, what I do is push. And in order to push, I need something to push against. We are not out to convince our pals. We are out to convince our opponents in this. I was trained in deconstruction and the dialectic from the day I was born and those who trained me have not always been entertained to find their own weapons turned upon them. But I prefer a clean fight. An honorable fight. No one will know the knife that bears the poison, not until I choose to use it.

But, be advised, it is a part of me, part of my arsenal. I can no more lay it aside than cut off my hands. Of course it was easy to replace any talk of such things with an easy reason like carbon dioxide. Sir, he emphatically stated what he cannot by any stretch of my imagination know to be true. My concern in this particular matter is your credibility, honest. And I appreciate it. Understand that when I do what I do, they can throw all the low blows they care to — but cannot lay a glove on me.

I have disarmed them, evaded them, forced them to fight on my terms. Furthermore, they become aware that I have other weapons at my disposal that I do not — but can — use. And deterrence is a powerful tool. Evan, I would like to add, most emphatically, an in no uncertain terms: This is no fraud to me. I grew up in a house full of knife wielders ;. Truth always means something and will prevail in the end. Dorian, you came late to the party it seems.

Skeptics are the number one target of the zealots. Your white collar crime stuff has already spawned a number of whitewashes — the latest ones, however, based on skeptics information and data are going to be something different. Guess how we know there has been white collar crime in the first place?

You are getting an inkling I can feel it. Skeptics published Climategate, skeptics turned the light on the RICO 20, the lead guy having collected 63 million dollars from one agency and has no significant work to show for it and hired his wife and daughter to run the empire. Skeptics have had a number of scientific papers cause to be retracted.

Skeptics have emboldened marginalized scientists of dissenting opinions to publish more and more good alternative climate studies, skeptics have given the most powerful testimony at Senate and Congressional committee hearings and in the UK parliament. Early: I wish they were all dead. Lee: Why, I do not wish they were all dead.

I merely wish that they would return to their homes and leave us in peace. Early later, to Stuart : I would not say so in front of General Lee, but I not only wish they were dead, but in hell. These attitudes manifested themselves in their respective fighting styles. Who was the better general, Lee or Early? The cool hand or the hot head?

History has made its judgment. This paper does good work towards satisfying that condition. Embrace the healing power of and. Civility is my weapon. And a terrible, implacable weapon it is — if one only knows how to use it. The next step is unnecessary. Presumptive, alienating.

Skip links

I do not want their scalps. Ultimately, all I want is their ear. But you are wrong, Dorian. WUWT and other skeptics are having a profound effect. The word is getting out, and the CAGW activists are being contained. This paper will add to the impression that many have that skeptics are serious, worth a listen, and have a case. Dorian, We also may have Mother Nature on our side. And there are still many real scientists in the field. Even if some were pulled into the more alarmist or activist camp, they will look at new evidence and modify their opinions. I believe this is a great thing for climate science, hopefully it will get published in a good journal, but even without that, because it was done carefully, it constitutes another step in the building blocks that make up the progress of science.

Moan and groaned about funding. Anthony did it cheapo style. He needs to be cautious of this tactic and establish groundrules upfront of what they are actually concerned about. Set a timeline for review, major milestones, blah blah. Please explain how society and the economy could possibly be put in real jeopardy by what Watts et al or WUWT et all has done here? I think perhaps he fails to see the iron fist within the velvet glove. Unfortunately, the attempt to reduce carbon emissions is actually increasing harm to the natural environment.

And the juggernaut rolls on, dragging innocent people with it e. Meanwhile, government subsidies are a lucrative income for some industrialists. Congratulations Anthony This is of huge importance if the criteria for classifying the stations are recognized as unbiased. The difference between 0. However, the importance of your finding depends on whether the objectivity for the classifying criteria can be questioned or not.

Be prepared to be attacked there Antony. The best defense is to give full access to all the data once it is published. Furthermore that is also the best scientific method. And real numbers show the climate sensitivity is less scary than was feared. This is good news.

And this is very good work. Take a bow. He has. But it is not UHI. It is Microsite. Removing well sited urban data has no measurable effect on non-urban trend. Trendwise, it is all in the microsite. If the area within in a few miles of the sensor has gone from a population of to , that can have an impact on the measured temperatures. BlackBerry has never been hacked. BlackBerry is well trusted.

If you need a contact there, I can help. Thanks, Mr. Nothing wrong with that. Gives a mere citizen scientist some elbow room. As for class 1, see my guest post here earlier this year on. I did precisely that analysis. WUWT search tool takes you there immediately. Just checked.

And sauce for the GHCN. But we would want to get some mud on our boots over there, to quantify. They are bumped up from 0. Manual adjustment is much more preferred. If this is the extent of the problem within the USA, can you imagine how much over-estimation there has been for global temperature rises. Has anyone tried to compare this corrected trend with USA area satellite data based trends over the same period of time. That would be interesting to see as it could explain the difference between the CAGW supporters quoted global temperature rises using land based weather stations and the parallel satellite date which shows very significant temperature rise flattening if not even no rise at all!

Excellent point. Roger Sr. We can. We have. We do. Is there an area weighting applied to each subset of stations? No, just regional averages. And some regions are better covered than others but our basic gridding addresses this. Note well that our ungridded data runs cooler than the gridded. We have pushed hard against our own hypothesis. We pre-released in order to elicit hostile independent review — which we have addressed. More papers should do that, I think.

Measure twice. Cut once. Well done Anthony. I have also been checking on my home town of Broome in Australia, where BoM has their instruments sited at the local small airport, finding a few maximum temperature spikes at passenger jet arrival and departure times. Yesterday 5 took off within minutes, with a temperature spike at the same time.

A nearby station at Broome Port shows no spikes at all. Help JoNova organize the Aussie equivalent of surface stations. Is not complicated, and she has the organizational chops. This is edging closer to the 1. Last year, the forecast for predicted a central estimate of 0. Observational data from January to October this year shows the global mean temperature so far this year is running at 0.

In combination with continuing climate change, the forecasters believe it will lead to new records. Every evening the BBC weather forecasters tell us that rural area temperatures will be a degree or so lower than the readings from weather stations on their charts which are located largely in the far more urbanised but lesser areas of the overall UK area.

A great deal of these are independent of weather effects, or seasonal effects. These heat generation sources have also increased significantly over the last years or so, particularly globally. In such circumstances how can the Met Office dare suggest that these later years are hotter or that such data can be used for assessing CAGW or substantiating the massive sums of money being thrown at it?.

Offset is all very well. But in terms of trend, Microsite dominates UHI. Well sited urban stations may be hotter, but they average lower trends than poorly sited non-urban trends. Even if the ice age suddenly strikes and the Met Office is under a kilometre of ice. We do not use pairwise thereafter: We like to let thermometers do their own thing, inasmuch as is consistent with accuracy. You made Drudge! They moved the official station in our city within the last 10 years or so, from north of the airport GJT in the stinking desert where few locals live and why the airport was put there to their new NWS office building in the middle of the asphalt area.

Asphalt as measured with an IR thermometer is about the worse surface you can use. Here is a sample of IR readings from a clear sky day, starting at pm, pm, pm, then am. Thanks, micro I left out my point that car parks get cleared of snow. The desert needs to wait until the sun is warm enough to overcome the heat reflecting off snow and melt, other than the tracks of the vehicle that used to drive in to get the readings.

Although they tried to mitigate the area right around the new location, zooming out will show a lot of asphalt that gets cleared of snow. Nice work, Anthony. You set a standard to which others should attempt to emulate. Does that sound reasonable? This therefore impacts the confidence interval on the relationship between C02 and temperature.

We do not include sea surface or SAT. Haddy SST may be under attack by others, but land-only is what we do. Good point.

However… Have you seen how widely variable the estimates of SST are? So the error bars are probably far larger than any of the common estimates. Even if you see out of the corner of your eyeball subconsciously a larger temperature trend a human being will be more likely to select that station as being out of compliant. This is why medical industry does double blinded studies, to try and remove confirmation bias. Was there any attempt here to remove confirmation bias? Is there a way to apply Leroy that removes as much potential for confirmation bias as possible?

There is a simple answer. The individual station surveys were done by hundreds of volunteers. They all took multiple pictures up close and personal. There can be no overall confirmation bias in such a methodology. Surely you were not implying a real critique, rather just hoping elicit this sort of comment. Now Karl …. So who interprets the pictures, the hundreds of volunteers or the authors? Also helpful to show the population distribution of the metrics. The ones far away from threshold limits e. The ones closest to the thresholds are the ones that would possibly be subject to confirm bias.

I make the Proximity Views. How do you account for confirmation bias? This is not something you just whip up. That is all one can do. I will bet after extensive independent review that not all station ratings will remain exactly the same. And more stations will be surveyed and added to the mix. Then there are the Class As to ponder. Not to mention GHCN. This is but a frozen moment in a continuing process. Our bestest allies and our worstest opponents. Anyone who wants to. The panel analyzes survey packets consisting of a site survey checklist, site score sheet, site obstruction drawings, and site photos to determine the ideal location of USHCN-M stations.

By challenging the current reviewers to audit your work you gain level par and really get into the weeds with them. Doing this is actually doing the work the congressional committee would need to validate your work. Hope that helps. So how much of this is judgement, and how much is just ordinary math? Then plot the population distribution and look at the pass fail line and see how far away you are. Usually easier to use metrics only, that way you can visualize it.

I used this technique in manufacturing and in automated ECG interpretation. For example it turns out for automated ECG interpretation, the data points the automated algorithm thought were ambiguous i. There are a few, but not very many. The most reliable way to remove confirmation bias is to make your data available for others to review. You and anyone else are free to review the stations and come up with your own independent ratings. If they differ, write to the editors.

They have shown that they are open to honest criticism. Also was the baseline recalculated on a monthly basis for each subset, so that the anomalies could be correctly recalculated for each subset of stations considered?

# Messy housemate blues with a side of bugs. | Captain Awkward

Gosh, yes. Or the equivalent. It is essential to use year monthly data and average them for the year trends in order to avoid annual seasonal bias. What if data is missing for a station in July? That would spuriously reduce the annual average. It is also important for stations with truncated coverage because it applies their monthly only to the time period covered by the data.

And all data is anomalized to remove offset bias which affects trend for station dropout. So we anomalize. What baseline is being used? I mean, what baseline time period? Time series is — We have — and — subperiods, too. Everything is anomalized. Relatively anomalized, at that. The monthly data happens in whichever year it happens and is therefore weighted, accordingly. Very green. Very generic. No way for a truncated or broken series to throw its weight in the wrong direction.

Goodbye to the old station-dropout blues. Annual distortion. And when I anomalize, I do it all the way. I remain a mathematical a hippie, at heart.

  • Twentieth Century Drifter: The Life of Marty Robbins (Music in American Life)?
  • Sketches from a Celestial Sea - The 1141 to Penn Station;
  • Getting Your Spouse to Clean Up After HIMself?

I am also a game designer. But you can easily baseline for whatever you want. Nothing wrong with that apart from the fascism. Add offset, rinse, repeat. I baselined the graph above to for purposes of clarity. Normally the anomalies would be all be reported against a common year baseline. USHCN is reported against the baseline. The value for your two other datasets will have different anomalies based on variation from the baselines for those stations, so the blue and gold lines would start above or below the red line.

By moving them up or down so they align in you end up with the red line on top, but that in fact may or may not have the highest anomaly later in the period shown. With respect to the trends however of course it makes no difference. The anomaly for each month at each station is the amount that it is different from the mean for that station and month of the year over a given period of time.

Okay, what I mean is I let the numbers run free. It is not baselined to anything but itself. Average all twelve year monthlies weighting for varying numbers of days in each month. For a region, use the average of all stations in that region per month and do the above. The smaller the subset, the worse the coverage, of course. Alright, then, that sounds like the standard way to calculate anomalies for each station. The year average is the baseline. Then do you use a gridded average of the station anomalies in each region to calculate the regional anomaly for each month?

Wow, congratulations! Can someone calculate how many years back from the most recent readings on this set of data that there is zero average change? That would be interesting as a comparison. Or only be useful as support. For there to be a divergence in trend, there must be a trend for the trend divergence to manifest itself. An interval of no trend would produce no trend divergence. Very useful as support for the lay public. If it gets to 25 years of no trend, everyone quits believing regardless of other past data.

Anthony, Congratulation! I know how much work you had to have put into it just getting it published, after doing the actual study itself! What was the response to the presentation, Anthony? Am I missing something. IF the gold standard sites are warming at 0. If that continues we get to 2c per century. Now I understand the variability but I am not sure this report lets the heaters off the hook.

Ardy, you are missing something big and obvious. CONUS is developing rapidly. Massive land use change, for example. The land world is not.